Oral Answers to Questions

HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

Accident and Emergency Admissions

Brian Cotter: What action his Department is taking to help accident and emergency departments cope where there are increases in the number of patients who are admitted for treatment.

Rosie Winterton: The Department has set up substantial national support for accident and emergency departments. The latest figures show that more than 90 per cent. of patients were treated, admitted or discharged from accident and emergency in less than four hours, compared with 78 per cent. in December 2002, even though in many areas there has been an increase in the number of patients using the service.

Brian Cotter: I thank the Minister for that reply. Weston-super-Mare has a particular problem, in that a department designed to treat only 25,000 patients in fact treats 45,000. Historically, we have also had problems with fair funding because of our proximity to Bristol. I hope that the Minister will pay special attention to that issue, as we also need assistance for paediatrics and other departments.

Rosie Winterton: It is true that the number of patients has increased, and some £240,000 has been provided in the past two years to improve resuscitation services. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Weston area has put together an action plan to improve the accident and emergency department, in particular by establishing a paediatric minor injuries unit and an urgent care centre. In the past week, Weston NHS trust qualified for a capital incentive payment of £100,000 to be spent on locally determined projects, which should improve the situation.

Phil Sawford: I thank my hon. Friend for visiting Kettering general hospital a few weeks ago; the members of staff, management and patients to whom she spoke appreciated her visit. If she had been able to stay longer, she could have seen the refurbished and modernised A and E unit, the new CAT scanner, the new MRI scanner, the new orthopaedic theatre and the new ophthalmic unit—I could go on for ever, if you would allow me to, Mr.   Speaker. Does my hon. Friend agree that that contrasts starkly with the years when wards were closed and padlocked under the previous Government?

Rosie Winterton: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It was a great pleasure to meet the dedicated and committed staff in the A and E department. They were given a £100,000 incentive payment for achieving 94 per cent. of target two weeks ago, and if they continue in the same way—as I am sure they will—they will qualify for some £500,000 in extra funding to improve services locally. My hon. Friend is right: no one can imagine going back to the bad old days of cuts, under-investment and poor staff morale.

Richard Taylor: Will the Minister consider supporting the formation of clinical networks in accident and emergency, so that A and E departments can share expertise and staff with local minor injuries units, thereby increasing the scope of minor injuries units and lessening the load on A and E departments?

Rosie Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that such networks can be helpful. We have established emergency services collaboratives, whereby various A and E departments have been able to spread best practice. We are also setting up emergency care networks to consider some of the issues that he mentions. It is important to consider not only A and E departments but the contribution of ambulance trusts, primary care and pharmacists, so that we can build proper choice into the system of emergency care.

Siobhain McDonagh: What weighting is given to A and E numbers when considering the amalgamation or closure of hospitals, especially in built-up urban areas? In my constituency, we are concerned that St. Helier hospital might move to the Sutton hospital site, which we predict would mean an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 extra patients at St. George's.

Rosie Winterton: As my hon. Friend will be aware, it is for local primary care trusts, working with strategic health authorities and trusts, to ensure that any reconfiguration of services is not to the detriment of patient care or involves missing any targets. She will know about the four-hour target and about those for ambulance trusts, which are designed to ensure that people receive care within a certain time. Any reconfigurations must take those targets into account, and I hope that that is happening in her local area.

Racial Discrimination

Evan Harris: What assessment he has made of racial discrimination in medical careers in the NHS.

John Hutton: The national health service is fully committed to the principle of race equality, both as an employer and as a provider of services. In relation to careers in medicine, new legislation that I expect to come into force later this year will provide new routes to entry on the specialist register for associate specialists and for staff-grade doctors. The postgraduate medical education training board will also oversee the provision of new top-up training, allowing doctors in that group to gain entry to the register.

Evan Harris: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. He must be aware that his Department recently had to pay a doctor damages of more than £600,000 for discrimination. The Government did not appeal, on the basis that the tribunal found the Birmingham declaration of 1996, which governs the transition to specialist training in order to become a consultant, to be indirect racial discrimination. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other doctors may have been affected. Will the Minister seek them out so that they can be fast-tracked to consultant status with fair treatment, or will he expect each of them to drag the Department to the courts if they are in time to do so?

John Hutton: Obviously, we take all those issues very seriously indeed. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw our attention to that case, but it was complicated by the provisions on permit-free work time that then applied. The arrangements changed subsequently, so I do not think that those problems will be repeated. The key is to get the postgraduate medical education training board up and functioning as soon as possible, and we are committed to doing that. We can then activate article 14 of the new specialist training order, which will allow the postgraduate medical education training board to take a much wider view of work-based experience when assessing whether someone is suitable to go on to the specialist register. I agree that that will take time, but the issues are complicated. I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's premise that it is our responsibility to treat doctors fairly and equally in the NHS, which is precisely why—with that purpose in mind—we have changed the law.

Andrew Selous: We all abhor racial discrimination against NHS staff, but does the Minister think it right that there is so much age discrimination against NHS staff? The policy of one of my local trusts is not to employ people aged over 70, yet there are medical secretaries who want to carry on working and are entirely competent. It is very difficult to recruit such secretaries, so will the Government look into that matter?

John Hutton: Yes, I shall happily look into it for the hon. Gentleman. It is sensible for NHS trusts to adopt a flexible policy in relation to such matters. However, I should point out that he and his hon. Friends constantly complain about ministerial intervention in the decision making of local NHS trusts, so I am not sure that he and his hon. Friends would necessarily be the first to welcome my interference in that case—but perhaps I am wrong.

Medical Students

Rob Marris: If he will make a statement on the number of students entering medical training schools in (a) the current year and (b) 1997.

John Reid: In autumn 2003, English medical schools admitted 6,030 students. In 1997, the figure was 3,749. That is an increase of more than 2,250 medical students, or more than 60 per cent. since 1997. It is the largest increase in medical school places since the national health service was established.

Rob Marris: As we say in the black country, those figures are bostin'.
	My late father was, for more than 25 years, a consultant radiologist at the hospitals that now form the Royal Wolverhampton hospitals NHS trust, and I, too, worked there. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Wolverhampton trust is playing its part in helping to train that record number of doctors, and that NHS funding, especially for training, will be maintained?

John Reid: Indeed, I can. I know that my hon. Friend takes a familial and political interest in these matters as well as a constituency interest, so I took the trouble to check the figures on the Royal Wolverhampton hospitals NHS trust. In 2002, more than 180 medical students undertook practice placements in the trust; in 1997, there was none. The trust has expanded its postgraduate doctor placements by nearly 35,000 in two years. My hon. Friend may also be interested to know that the nearby Birmingham medical school admitted 428 students in autumn last year, compared with 215 in 1997—a 99 per cent. increase.

David Tredinnick: The Secretary of State has referred to the increase in the number of medical students, but he has not referred to an increase in training in complementary and alternative medicine for medical students or doctors, in line with the recommendations of the Lords report on alternative and complementary medicine, which even his Department admits is a benchmark. What increase has there been in training in complementary medicine for doctors, and does he plan to increase the percentage?

John Reid: There has been an increase in the training of doctors in almost every single field. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman looks rather quizzical, but between 1979 and 1997, when the Conservative Government were responsible, not a single new medical school was opened and, indeed, two dental schools were closed. However, this Government have opened four new medical schools since the autumn of 2002 alone, so there has been a marvellous upsurge in the number of medical places and doctors in practice as well, and that goes right across the field. As the hon. Gentleman knows, unlike the previous Government, provided that there is always reasonable regulation and empirical evidence to substantiate the efficacy of alternative medicine, this Government are intent on extending choice and information to patients in the national health service.

Andrew Murrison: In the 1970s, the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors got their predictions for our dental work force very badly wrong, and our constituents are living with the consequences. Given that the best guess that the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), was able to reach in European Standing Committee C for the number of doctors that we would have to train to take care of the European working time directive was between 6,000 and 12,000, how much confidence can Ministers have in his predictions for our future medical man force requirements? Will he tell us the net number of doctor hours that will result from those increases by the year 2009?

John Reid: Today is the 25th anniversary of the unfortunate election of Baroness Thatcher. On that date in 1979, the message repeatedly given was that everything was the fault of the Labour Government in the early 1970s. After 25 years, the record has not changed at all. In fact, there are now 2,000 more dentists than there were in 1997, and the reason most of them are not doing as much NHS work as previously is the disastrous contract that the Conservatives introduced in 1992.
	On the working time directive, while we do not for a moment diminish the difficulties that two legal judgments have caused, an enormous amount of work is being done to ensure that, both in methodology and numbers, we can cope in the NHS. The hon. Gentleman talks about the 1970s, but Britain, including the British national health service, is working once again, and it would be an absolute disaster to let him and his colleagues ruin it once again.

Medical Research

Ann McKechin: If he will make a statement on his Department's funding of medical research.

John Reid: We are making an additional £25 million available for medical research each year for the next four years. That increase of £100 million by 2007–08 will help to increase the total Government budget for medical research from £1billion a year to £1.2 billion a year by 2007–08.
	I can tell the House that Birmingham Women's health care trust has won the bid to run the new £1.8 million genetics education and development centre, which will help to educate NHS staff about how they can use the latest genetic knowledge and techniques in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of common diseases, such as breast cancer.

Ann McKechin: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is a great deal of interest in gene therapy research, as it could provide a treatment not only for common diseases, such as heart disease and cancer, but for inherited conditions, such as muscular dystrophy. I understand that the Department has recently announced a funding package for further research in that area. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that research institutes throughout the United Kingdom, not just in London, will benefit from that new funding?

John Reid: I can indeed confirm that. As my hon. Friend suggests, I recently announced another £4   million to support research into gene therapy in the United Kingdom—an area of scientific research where I can say with all due modesty and not the least complacency that this country is playing a leading role at the cutting edge, to the benefit of patients here as well as throughout the world. I can also confirm—my hon. Friend will be particularly pleased to hear this—that the beneficiaries of that £4 million grant include Dr. Linda Scobie of the university of Glasgow, who received £450,000 for very important research on the safety of retroviral vectors.

Marion Roe: Does the Secretary of State accept that the provisions of the Human Tissue Bill and the European Community clinical trials directive seriously undermine the increase in medical research funding that was announced in the Budget?

John Reid: It is rather churlish of the hon. Lady not to accept that, when we announce an additional £200 million for scientific research, it in no way undermines the value of research that is conducted in this country for patients. On the Human Tissue Bill, we are responsible to the people of this country for ensuring that what happened in Alder Hey and other areas never happens again. People's bodies belong to them; we own our bodies and all their parts. We must therefore not presume but seek consent. If there are difficulties, we will listen—as we are currently listening—to an array of interested parties, including researchers, to ensure that the benefits from future research are balanced by the rights of individuals over their bodies.

Anne Begg: I thank my right hon. Friend for the announcement of money for gene therapy. However, I emphasise that embryonic stem cell research is also important. The first licences have been issued and I look to the Secretary of State to promise that some of the money that is set aside for medical research will go into that area, which is so important, especially for people with neurological conditions.

John Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. The subject is important and has potentially enormous benefits. We should be proud that the United Kingdom, with effectively 1 per cent. of the world's population, funds 4.5 per cent. of the world's science and produces 8 per cent. of the world's scientific publications and 9 per cent. of the world's citations. We maintain such a position only by continually making the resources available to the ingenuity, application and determination of the scientific community in this country. The ultimate benefit is to those who suffer from some of the diseases and illnesses that my hon. Friend mentioned and knows only too well. We shall continue to do all we can to alleviate that pain and distress.

Nick Gibb: How much are the Department and the Food Standards Agency spending on research into the carcinogen acrylamide, which appears in, for example, baked potatoes, chips, crisps and other food that is cooked at high temperatures?

John Reid: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a reply off the top of my head but I promise to write to him with the figures.

Day Surgery Facilities

James Plaskitt: If he will make a statement on the expansion of day surgery facilities in the national health service.

John Hutton: The Government are committed to expanding day surgery in the NHS. The proportion of elective care carried out on a day case basis has risen from 59 per cent. in 1996–97 to 67 per cent. in 2002–03. Our investment of £68 million in the past two years in day surgery facilities and more than £350 million in NHS and independent sector treatment centres will help to maintain that expansion.

James Plaskitt: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. We have a successful 23-hour ward in Warwick hospital. It opened in temporary accommodation in January but moved to its permanent site two weeks ago. It has already treated 600 patients and is contributing to a further reduction in waiting times and waiting lists at the hospital. Does my right hon. Friend agree that more such units will be needed if we are to reach our target of performing 75 per cent. of all elective surgery on a day care basis?

John Hutton: Yes, I agree that we shall need more facilities such as the excellent example that he has drawn to the House's attention. I should like to put on record my appreciation of the hard work of staff in his local NHS trust and of the excellent service that they provide to his constituents. It is more convenient for patients to be treated on a day case basis and more efficient for the NHS. All Labour Members want the extra investment to which we are committed to make that difference in treatment for NHS patients.

Sydney Chapman: The Minister will know that the Audit Commission report for 2001 stated that there was scope for an additional 120,000 day surgery cases to be carried out with the facilities that were available then. What progress has been made on fulfilling that report's recommendations?

John Hutton: As I said in my answer, we are treating more and more NHS patients as day cases, and that is an excellent way to ensure that the extra investment in the NHS reaches the front line and improves the service for all our constituents. There are now 850,000 more operations being done as day cases than in 1996–97, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who always takes a balanced and fair approach, will recognise that we are making good progress in this field.

Andrew Lansley: I am sure that the Minister will agree that increasing the proportion of day case surgery is indeed a way of heightening efficiency in the NHS and that leading hospitals are already treating about 75 per cent. of elective in-patient admissions as day cases. Will the Minister therefore tell us why he and his colleagues are discussing—privately, in ministerial meetings—what is referred to as "official data" showing that productivity has fallen steadily since 1997, with a 10 per cent. decrease overall and a 15 to 20 per cent. decrease in health and education? On what statistics are Ministers basing that 15 to 20 per cent. reduction in health productivity? Will the Minister also tell the House why 200,000 finished consultant episodes, which in past years had been used for comparison, have mysteriously disappeared from the statistics in the Department's annual report on hospital activity trends, which he published 10 days ago?

John Hutton: There is only one message that the hon. Gentleman wants to give to the people of the country and to Members of the House, and that is that the NHS is getting worse, but every published indicator reveals that it is getting better. In relation to his point about productivity, it is fair to say that the current measure of productivity fails to take into account some very important things that are going on in the NHS. One example is that we are making more statins—the cholesterol-busting drugs—available to all our constituents. As a result, fewer people who would have gone on to develop coronary heart disease will now need coronary artery bypass grafts and other procedures that we count as an activity in the NHS. So on one measurement, because we are making our constituents healthier, the NHS is said to be becoming less productive. What a ridiculous state of affairs! Anyone who has a reasonable view of these matters would say that the case for looking again at that measure of productivity was overwhelming.

Health Care (West Worcestershire)

Michael Spicer: If he will publish his latest plans for the future of the health service in west Worcestershire.

Stephen Ladyman: South Worcestershire primary care trust is responsible for commissioning health care in west Worcestershire to meet national and local health priorities. Over the current three-year period, the funding allocation to enable the PCT to achieve this will increase in cash terms by £60.6 million, or more than 30 per cent.

Michael Spicer: Is the Minister aware that South Worcestershire primary care trust is seriously concerned that it might not have sufficient funds to honour the commitments to the GP contracts arranged by the Government, let alone to service the capital requirements for the four new medical centres and two community hospitals promised in my constituency?

Stephen Ladyman: Funding in the hon. Gentleman's constituency has massively increased. If there are any concerns about what funding is to be available in the years to come, let me put them in context. In the last year of the previous Conservative Government, spending per head in his constituency was £623. In 2002–03, the last year for which we have audited outturns, it was £894, and by 2005–06 his constituents will be having £1,061 per head spent on them. There should therefore be no concerns whatsoever about having the resources to meet those obligations.

Michael Foster: Will my hon. Friend explain how the 31 per cent. increase in funding for South Worcestershire primary care trust was raised? Does he agree that, while the residents of south Worcestershire have every right to ask for more resources to be spent on our local health service, there are two residents of south Worcestershire, both of whom are Conservative Members, who have no right to call for extra money, given the way in which they voted in the House when the money was allocated?

Stephen Ladyman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The huge increase in local spending resulted from this Government's decision to increase national insurance by 1 per cent. to pay for extra investment in the national health service. The Conservatives opposed that. The 70 per cent. per capita increase that I have just described would be wiped away if they ever got back into power.

Peter Luff: Does the Minister not recognise that the Government's mismanagement of those increased resources has led to cuts in services for the primary care trust, a massive debt at the acute hospital and the prospect of all the new services that we need for GP surgeries and cottage hospitals being abandoned? We know that the extra money the PCT has is not enough to pay for the GP contract and those extra surgeries and hospitals, so will he say over what time scale those new surgeries, and the new hospital at Pershore, will be delivered?

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman takes my breath away: the Conservatives would not spend one penny extra on health services if they were returned to government and he voted against the increases that we are discussing. Local decisions are now being made about prioritisation, because we have decided that we cannot make all the decisions for his constituency at the centre. I am flattered that he would like me to make all the decisions for his constituency, but that simply would not be a good way of doing things, so the funding of new GP premises in his constituency will be prioritised locally, which is exactly as it should be.

NHS Dentistry (Liverpool)

Louise Ellman: How many dentists in Liverpool have ceased providing NHS dental treatment over the past two years.

Rosie Winterton: There has been a net reduction of 34 dentists providing NHS dental services in the Liverpool area over the past two years. However, that figure should be treated with caution because it is not a whole-time equivalent. It also includes people who have retired. The three PCTs in Liverpool have been allocated £356,700 specifically to improve access to NHS dentistry locally over the next year.

Louise Ellman: I thank the Minister for that answer and welcome the information on the extra funding for NHS dentistry in Liverpool, but can she give us any further information on how the proposed new contract will help to retain and recruit dentists to work in the NHS?

Rosie Winterton: As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, if a dentist leaves the NHS the money spent on NHS dentistry in the local area returns to the centre. The new contract and the proposals in the Health and Social Care Act 2001 will ensure that the money to support dentistry goes to the local level so that there can be proper provision made locally—the money stays locally. The contract removes the treadmill and bureaucracy introduced by the previous Government, which have been so unpopular with dentists and caused them to walk away in the first place.

John Baron: What is happening in Liverpool is typical of what is happening around the rest of the country. Indeed, recent Government figures have shown that, after seven years in power, over half a million fewer patients are registered for NHS dental treatment than in 1998, while the British Dental Association stated recently that millions of people are unable to register with an NHS dentist. Five years ago, the Prime Minister pledged that everyone would be able to see an NHS dentist within two years. It is now blatantly obvious that this Government have yet again failed to deliver on a promise. Will the Minister be honest, admit that the Government have got NHS dentistry badly wrong and set about putting it right immediately?

Rosie Winterton: That is a bit rich coming from the Opposition. It has been said before, but it is worth repeating, that they introduced the incredibly unpopular new contract in 1990, cut dentists' fees and closed two dental schools. We have brought about the biggest reform of NHS dentistry in 50 years. We know that—

John Baron: Half a million fewer patients.

Rosie Winterton: About 1.7 million more courses of dental treatment have been provided within the last year. There are undoubtedly particular problems in certain areas, which is why we have put aside about £90 million in the last year to address access problems at local level. That is for the short term. In the longer term, we are changing the system so that the money held centrally is given to local PCTs, enabling them to plan with local dentists the provision at local level. That has been welcomed by the BDA, in contrast to what it has been saying recently about the contract introduced by the Tories and the way in which they closed dental schools and cut fees.

Edgware/Colindale Hospitals

Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on the planned sale of land at Edgware and Colindale hospitals.

Melanie Johnson: In accordance with local plans, Barnet primary care trust and Barnet, Enfield and Haringey mental health NHS trusts are disposing of surplus land at Colindale and Edgware hospitals. The land sales are being managed locally to ensure that the needs of the local NHS are met.

Andrew Dismore: Given the substantial growth in population expected in the area—45,000 extra people in Barnet over the next few years, and possibly extra people in Harrow and Brent—the real demand that has been identified for parking at Edgware and the need for affordable housing for key workers locally, particularly those in the NHS, will my hon. Friend consider reviewing the decision on those land sales? It is pretty clear that we will soon need some of that land for NHS purposes, rather than selling it off for expensive housing, which is what is likely to happen otherwise.

Melanie Johnson: I am sure that my hon. Friend has made his representations to the local PCTs, who are responsible for commissioning and providing services. As he will know, the trusts are currently considering a land disposal at the Edgware hospital site and, as part of that, building key worker homes at the Colindale site. One of the options on the disposal of some land at Edgware is that part of the land may be retained for car parking and other facilities at Edgware community hospital. If my hon. Friend is not content with the discussions that he is having locally, I am sure that we would want to meet him and discuss his concerns in the Department.

Chris Grayling: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is keen to get in, but the question is about north London.

Chris Grayling: May I ask about land sales in the south-east?

Mr. Speaker: That is too wide.

General Practitioners

Bill O'Brien: What advice is given to primary care trusts to assist with recruitment of general practitioners; and if he will make a statement.

John Hutton: The Government have established work force confederations to take forward local recruitment initiatives to expand the national health service. In addition, we have invested more than £38 million in financial incentives to support flexible and new ways of working to encourage doctors to enter, and return to, general practice. As a result, the NHS now has more GPs than at any time in its history.

Bill O'Brien: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I congratulate the Government on the increase in nurses, doctors and consultants, more of whom are now employed by the NHS than ever before. My concerns are that in the north of England, and particularly in the Wakefield area, we seem to have shortages of GPs, which affects a substantial number of my constituents. From my exchange of correspondence with the chairman of the Wakefield West PCT, it appears that it has little influence in trying to engage GPs to fill vacancies. Can my right hon. Friend give any further advice to ensure that my constituents, particularly the elderly and disabled, have GPs, and to ensure that the requirement for GPs in the Wakefield area is met?

John Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for acknowledging the progress that has been made. In Wakefield, there are now 27 more GPs than there were in 1997. I accept entirely his view that there are still not enough. Clearly, we look initially to primary care trusts to fill those vacancies, and a range of resources is available to help them to do that. As he knows, we are making more progress in making sure that every primary care trust has its fair share of resources, and that the extra growth available for the NHS goes to those parts of the service that need it the most. That would certainly include my hon. Friend's constituency.

Paul Burstow: The Minister will know of the important role played by GPs in community hospitals up and down the country. Given that, will he offer some assurance about the current state of play with GPs who are already opting out of working in community hospitals, or who plan to do so in the near future? Health Ministers in the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament have recognised the disaster that that would represent and have started negotiations about the problem, so why does it appear that he still has his head in the sand?

John Hutton: On this occasion, I hope that I do not have my head in the sand. The hon. Gentleman should remind himself of the recommendations of the doctors and dentists review body this year, which suggested that we should take this forward as part of the review of the non-consultant career grade for doctors in the NHS. We are happy to do that. Those issues are being discussed with the British Medical Association as we speak. Obviously, we also need to take the view of the NHS Confederation, which from this October will become the new employers' organisation for the NHS. Clearly, it is important that we make sure that services are provided to community hospitals by GPs. The new GP contract has nothing whatever to do that, as those arrangements are dealt with separately, and I hope that we will be able to make an announcement on that in the very near future.

Dave Watts: The Minister will know that it is most difficult to recruit and retain GPs in some of the poorer areas. Is there not a case for add-in incentives to persuade them to come to and stay in very deprived areas?

John Hutton: There certainly is. That is why—as my hon. Friend, who takes a close interest in these matters, will be aware—we have increased the golden hello scheme payments for GPs in areas with too few doctors from £10,000 to £12,000. The increase has partly succeeded, in that it has enabled us to recruit more GPs, but, as my hon. Friend will know, we are looking carefully at all the issues. I have received representations from a number of my hon. Friends about GP shortages in their constituencies. Along with the NHS, we are trying to find ways of providing further incentives. As my hon. Friend rightly observed, general practice is at the heart of all our NHS reforms.

Tim Yeo: Will the Minister confirm that Government claims to have met the GP recruitment target are complete and utter nonsense? Is it any wonder that no one believes a word Ministers say, now that they have been caught blatantly distorting the true picture by ignoring the difference between full-time and part-time GPs?
	Will the Minister confirm that the number of long-term GP vacancies is now rising alarmingly? Will he also confirm that as the country faces an incipient crisis with the retirement of large numbers of GPs in the next three years, it is a disgrace that the Government's only answer is to try to fiddle the figures?

John Hutton: I was wondering when we would hear from the hon. Gentleman. Unfortunately, I do not think that any of us would have minded too much if he had spent the half-hour session just nodding quietly to himself—[Interruption.] Was that the best that he could do? He is trying to carve out more space for himself and other Front Benchers by recognising improvements in the NHS when they happen; but where was that today? May we hear one word from him acknowledging that there are 2,000 more GPs in the NHS today than there were in 1999?
	The hon. Gentleman says that we are fiddling the figures. We collect the figures for the number of GPs in exactly the same way as they were recorded in 1997 under his party's Administration. He should be careful about chucking around allegations that the figures are not correct. They are collected by the Office for National Statistics, and if he thinks that the ONS is fiddling the figures he should raise the matter with the National Statistician rather than chucking around pathetic and totally unfounded allegations about their accuracy.

David Taylor: Are not GPs more likely to be recruited if practices are well funded and well housed and offer a wide range of services? How often do we see the situation described to me in recent weeks by practices in North-West Leicestershire? Following the implementation of the general medical services contract, a number of doctors have been unable to offer minor injury and other non-core services because the funding for primary care trusts and the prices that they are offering are not enough to pay for such facilities. What guidance is given to PCTs about minimum levels of off-contract funding? What happens if the levels are very low?

John Hutton: We have introduced a number of reforms to the way in which primary care is funded. I suspect that those local difficulties are partly connected with arguments about the definition of the new class of enhanced services under the GMS contract, and I hope that they can be resolved.
	It should be borne in mind that the new contract will be accompanied by a 33 per cent. increase in spending for primary care, which I am sure my hon. Friend will welcome. First and foremost, however, disputes need to be resolved at local level. I do not think it would be very sensible for me to try to intervene in each one, but I assure all my hon. Friends that the new contract is being fully and properly resourced. We have introduced important reforms that will help to ensure that the additional money we have earmarked for primary care is spent on improving GP services.

Waiting Lists (Romford)

Andrew Rosindell: If he will make a statement on waiting lists in Romford.

Rosie Winterton: The main acute hospital providing health services for residents of Romford is Barking, Havering and Redbridge NHS trust. The trust is currently achieving both the elective admission and first out-patient appointment waiting time targets.

Andrew Rosindell: I do not think my constituents will be convinced by that response. I have countless examples of people from Romford who have been waiting for months, if not years, for essential operations. What does the Minister say to senior citizens in my constituency, who worked hard, paid their taxes, expect a health service now that they are older and feel utterly betrayed and let down by the Government?

Rosie Winterton: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will be keen to let his constituents know that the number of patients waiting for elective surgery in Barking and Havering health authority in March 1997 was 10,077 and that the number of patients waiting in Havering PCT in February this year was 5,268. That is a difference of about 50 per cent. Those figures speak for themselves.

Angela Watkinson: When the new Oldchurch hospital was planned, a series of specialist GP practices throughout the area was also planned, to be developed concurrently. The purpose was to relieve pressure on the new hospital and to shorten waiting times. The hospital is due to open in 2005, but to date it has not been possible for the primary care trust to develop one single specialist GP practice. What assistance can the Minister offer to the primary care trust to enable it to meet its deadline?

Rosie Winterton: As the hon. Lady knows, under the policy of shifting the balance of power, decisions on local provision of services rest at local level. Obviously, if she wishes to raise a particular problem, she can write to us about that with notice and we will respond to it accordingly.

Green Minister

John Barrett: If he will make a statement on the work his Department's Green Minister has undertaken in the last three months.

Melanie Johnson: I have a number of responsibilities that contribute to sustainable development goals. Those include tackling health inequalities, healthy eating and physical activity. Our public health consultation, "Choosing Health?", which will run until the end of May, will also make an important contribution to the sustainable development agenda.

John Barrett: Given that disposable nappies cost the NHS £1.5 million a year and that often no choice is available to new mothers in maternity wards, does the Minister agree that one way of tackling the environmental damage caused by hospital waste would be to make a commitment to promote the use of the traditional towelling nappies?

Melanie Johnson: There is no reason why individual NHS trusts and individual midwifery units should not pursue policies in line with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. Indeed, I have had discussions with colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on just those topics. We try to ensure that all the material that goes out to new mothers clearly indicates that disposable nappies and terry nappies are both options and should be considered alongside each other in making decisions.

Bob Spink: Could the Green Minister, in the drive for sustainable development, ensure that the move towards centralised, very large GP centres in communities that previously enjoyed many dispersed small practices does not unnecessarily reduce access to those practices for vulnerable people—in other words, that the centres are not too centralised and that there are a number of different centres in a community?

Melanie Johnson: From what he is saying, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman basically agrees with our policy, which is to decentralise decision making and services as far as possible. There is increasing support for access centres and for rural provision to ensure that people do not have to travel long distances, except where they need specialist facilities that can be provided on only a limited basis. Most patients would rather go where they can get the best possible care.

In-patients

Phyllis Starkey: What progress has been made in reducing waiting times for hospital in-patients since 1997.

John Reid: We have made huge progress in reducing waiting times. In 1997, there were 118,000 patients in England waiting longer than nine months for an admission. I look forward to the publication of figures this Friday, which I am confident will show that the nine-month waiting list has been eliminated in the same way as the 12-month, 15-month and 18-month waiting lists, on which now only a handful of people remain.

Phyllis Starkey: I remind my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that thanks to the Government's overseas clinical teams initiative, Milton Keynes general hospital has just benefited from a team of anaesthetists and clinicians from France using our spare operating theatre capacity at weekends. As a result, the waiting lists for varicose veins and hernias have been reduced from over nine months to under six months. While thanking the Secretary of State for the additional money he has given to Milton Keynes to cope with population growth, I remind him of the extremely high rate of that growth. Will he continue to keep the situation in Milton Keynes under review so that if additional funding is needed, we can keep those waiting lists at their current low level and, if possible, reduce them still further?

John Reid: I can assure my hon. Friend that I will keep the situation under review. We have only recently made an additional allocation that I hope assists in that direction, not least because of the efforts made by the hospitals in Milton Keynes. My hon. Friend will know that we have met our targets to abolish 18-month, 15-month and 12-month waits. Our target now is to go ahead and abolish nine-month waits, on our way to eliminating six-month waits, on our way to reaching a target of a maximum of three months by 2008. I am glad to tell the House that, in Milton Keynes, there have been no breaches of the 12-month target for over a year. I fully expect that there will be equal success in eliminating nine-month waits.

Nigel Evans: Whether the Secretary of State likes it or not, being at the heart of Europe means that we have to take on the working time directive. How many extra staff will be needed post-1 August to ensure that waiting lists and times do not spiral out of control? Are there any specialties where we are having more difficulty in recruiting? Will we have to scour the world again for nurses and doctors to ensure that those waiting times and lists do not increase?

John Reid: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the congratulations to NHS staff on achieving the reductions in waiting times that I am sure he would have given in his question had he time. Secondly, enormous efforts are being made to make sure that we can balance fairness to staff, through the working time directive, with the continuation of services to patients. A word of caution; to use expressions such as "scouring the world" in relation to the many members of NHS staff who, over the last 60 years, have come here and provided marvellous health care to the people of this country is to do those staff less than justice, despite the Conservative party's intrinsic dislike of foreigners.

Lawrie Quinn: Given the welcome and encouraging earlier answer from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, does he share my concern about a leaflet being circulated by BUPA Heartbeat personal health plan that is well out of date, by over two years, and claims that well over 1 million people are currently waiting for an operation? Does he agree that BUPA needs better information and must get up to date, and that in trying to put facts into the public domain, it should not rely on past propaganda?

John Reid: I do not want to make any comment about any particular private care operator. [Hon. Members: "Go on."] I genuinely do not, because, Mr. Speaker, you will have read in the Financial Times and other newspapers recently that the NHS is now beginning to improve not only itself, but the whole of the health market. If anyone has a publication that says that more than 1 million people are on waiting lists, those concerned are way out of date; they are obviously thinking of the last Government. We now have considerably fewer than that figure and have had for each of the last 12 months. I suppose that by the time they reprinted the leaflet with today's waiting list figures, it would be out of date, such is the rate of reduction in waiting lists and waiting times.

Hywel Williams: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the NHS in England has had to bail out the Labour-run Welsh Assembly Government with extra hospital places? Despite the Secretary of State's heroic efforts, however, because of that Government's incompetence more than 6,000 people in Wales are still waiting for a first out-patient appointment, 8,500 have waited 12 months for their first in-patient treatment and 1,401 pour souls are still waiting more than 18 months for in-patient treatment in Wales.

John Reid: In all the time that I was a territorial Secretary of State I never had a compliment from a nationalist, and it is nice to receive one today. However, I am afraid that I cannot respond to the hon. Gentleman's point because figures for the Welsh health service are outwith my responsibility.

Schoolchildren

Bob Russell: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills about the health of schoolchildren.

Melanie Johnson: My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and for Education and Skills meet regularly to discuss a wide range of issues about the health, social care and education of children.

Bob Russell: Will the Minister confirm that for the first time in 100 years life expectancy is falling, because today's schoolchildren are less fit and healthy than their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents were at the same age? With that in mind, if we are to have a national health service rather than a national sickness service, will she work better with the Department for Education and Skills to ensure that our children have a minimum of two hours' physical education in the school curriculum?

Melanie Johnson: The hon. Gentleman has got that wrong. First, life expectancy is continuing to extend and, secondly, we work very closely with the Department for Education and Skills on all sorts of aspects of health in schools and matters that relate to the health of young children. In addition, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that we have a major consultation under way. I agree with him that obesity is a major issue, but that is why we are having the consultation, with a view to publishing a White Paper on public health during the summer. That consultation is open until 28 May, and I look forward to receiving the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mark Todd: I am sure that the Minister agrees with me that one critical aspect of improving the health of schoolchildren is encouraging the eating of fresh fruit. I am sure that she shares my constituency experience of encountering widespread enthusiasm for the adoption of the fruit in schools programme, which this Government have pushed forward. However, does she share my wish that the current programme, which is confined to key stage 1 except where a school chooses to extend it, should be extended to key stage 2 children, many of whom are very envious of what is being offered to key stage 1 children?

Melanie Johnson: I obviously share my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for the fruit in schools programme, which is encouraging infant children to eat more fruit both in and out of school. It has been shown that 25 per cent. more of them are eating fruit outside school and that 50 per cent. of families are recognising the value of fruit and vegetables in a healthy diet. That is why we are rolling out the programme across the country, at a cost of £77 million. We will evaluate the programme, and I will bear my hon. Friend's remarks in mind when we do that.

Chris Grayling: Central to that issue is childhood obesity. On Thursday, the Minister will chair a summit on obesity, a sure sign if ever there was one of Government policy failure. Can she tell us what her plans for that summit are, whether the Department for Education and Skills is involved in it and why, if it is a serious event, she needs a television presenter to chair it?

Melanie Johnson: We have been discussing all those matters widely with the DFES, and part of Thursday's event is to ensure that we are feeding the views of a wide range of people into the public health consultation that I mentioned a moment ago.

Midwives

Kerry Pollard: What steps he has taken to ensure that local health services publicise details of how women can access midwives directly; and if he will make a statement.

Stephen Ladyman: "Building on the best: Choice, responsiveness and equity in the NHS", published in December last year, encourages local health services to publicise contact details for midwives. The children's national service framework, which will be published later this year, will emphasise best practice.

Kerry Pollard: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. How can we encourage more people to take up training as midwives, to ensure that more women can have access to the midwife service?

Stephen Ladyman: We are working closely with the Royal College of Midwives and a range of other partners on a whole raft of initiatives, including a leadership programme and an examination of the barriers to midwife recruitment. We are doing everything we can to increase midwife numbers, and I am pleased to say that we are having some success: there are now 1,500 more midwives in the NHS than there were in 1997.

Martin Smyth: The Minister agreed that it is a long time since the Select Committee advocated increased midwifery services. What is the hindrance? Midwives, as opposed to obstetricians, still deliver more than 70 per cent. of babies, so surely they should be given more of lead role.

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: there is a much greater role to be found for midwives in the future. We are doing as much as we can to ensure that mothers are aware of that. For example, just before Christmas I launched a guide, produced with Dr. Foster, to explain to new mothers what services were available in their locality. We have to go a lot further to ensure that women have a genuine choice of a midwife-led birth if that is what they want.

Treatment of Iraqi Prisoners

Adam Ingram: I am grateful for this opportunity to report to the House following the serious allegations that have been made in recent days about the conduct of some British soldiers in Iraq. Any decent-thinking person will have been disturbed by photographs published in the Daily Mirror on Saturday, appearing to show the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by British soldiers.
	From the outset, we have taken the allegations seriously and taken the photographs at face value, and we will continue to do so unless there is evidence to the contrary. The special investigation branch of the Royal Military Police was immediately informed, and an investigation launched. RMP special investigation branch teams are currently following up lines of inquiry in Iraq, in the UK and in Cyprus, where the First Battalion, The Queen's Lancashire Regiment is currently based. Investigating officers are in touch with people at the Daily Mirror, to see what further information they have that might help get to the bottom of the incident. To date, they have handed over a total of some 20 photographs.
	It would be wrong for me to speculate about the outcome of this investigation, which must be allowed to take its course. As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, it is not appropriate for Ministers to interfere with police investigations. I can assure the House, however, that if British soldiers are found to have acted unlawfully, appropriate action will be taken. Our immediate priority is to establish the truth as quickly as possible. That is why I urge individuals with relevant information to come forward. We are determined to leave no stone unturned.
	The House will know that a number of other allegations have been made concerning instances of mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners and Iraqi civilians, some of which have resulted in fatalities. These are also serious matters and are being thoroughly investigated. There have been suggestions that such investigations are not being pursued properly or are unduly slow. I believe this to be unfair to the investigating personnel. Many of these investigations require detailed work to be undertaken in difficult and often dangerous circumstances. They cannot and should not be rushed. I am confident that they are being carried out properly.
	It is my intention to release as much further detail as possible on all these incidents, bearing in mind the rights of all those involved. It would be quite wrong to prejudice this process by applying undue pressure for haste, or indeed to point the finger of guilt outside the due process of law.
	The Daily Mirror article will have caused some people to question the integrity of British soldiers and the validity of their mission in Iraq. Thousands of service personnel have served in Iraq over the past 14 months. They have done an exceptional job in testing circumstances, and in turn have secured the support of the majority of Iraqis. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will join me in paying tribute to the superb work that our armed forces are doing both in Iraq and elsewhere around the world. While treating these allegations with full seriousness, we should not allow them to colour our judgment of the quality or integrity of our troops, or of the Army as a whole.
	Very grave allegations have been made that challenge the reputation of the British Army here, in Iraq and elsewhere. We must ascertain their truth or otherwise. At best, such allegations undermine the excellent work that our armed forces are doing under the most difficult conditions today in Iraq. They undermine the progress that we have made with our coalition partners in moving Iraq forward from the tyranny that the Iraqi people suffered under Saddam Hussein. Our forces serve with distinction throughout the world, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, the Balkans, Northern Ireland or elsewhere. Their achievements and professionalism are rightly praised worldwide. That is why we must establish the truth or otherwise of these allegations.

Nicholas Soames: I thank the Minister for his statement and for providing an advance copy earlier this afternoon.
	The allegations in the Daily Mirror are extremely serious and must of course be thoroughly and swiftly investigated. But the whole House will agree that they are the more shocking because of the outstanding reputation of the British armed forces not only for their remarkable war-fighting capabilities, but for their abiding humanity and decency in peacekeeping operations, and because of the ethos and values of the British Army, which have sustained it so successfully down the ages.
	A great deal is expected of our soldiers. They are required sometimes to deploy on operations that are extremely dangerous, to obey orders that may put their lives at risk, and to live and work for long periods under the most challenging conditions. This House, the country and the media badly need to understand that military service is like no other in the demands that it places on individuals and the organisation. Soldiers exist to engage in war, and war places unique demands upon them. They overcome those challenges only if morale, discipline and training are of the highest order. From every soldier is demanded an exceptional level of commitment, self-sacrifice and, above all, mutual trust. We therefore wholly support the most vigorous and detailed investigations to restore the good name of the British Army.
	As I said, the allegations made in the Daily Mirror are serious and must be pursued as a matter of urgency. I should be grateful if the Minster clarified the following. Has his Department's investigation been able to confirm the authenticity of the photographs published by the Daily Mirror? Has his Department any evidence of the Daily Mirror offering financial inducements for providing alleged evidence of such behaviour? How many alleged incidents of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by British soldiers have been reported? How many alleged incidents involving British troops are being investigated by his Department, and when will they reach a conclusion? Is the Minister satisfied with the training given to our troops in the handling of detainees prior to deployment and when they are in theatre?
	If these incidents have indeed taken place, the most vigorous action must be taken to protect those in military custody in Iraq and elsewhere, and to restore the good name of the Army. The values and standards of conduct under which our soldiers are trained make it absolutely clear that in bearing arms they have an exceptional responsibility of respect for others, and those values and standards demand from them the ability to distinguish clearly between right and wrong, and to maintain the highest standards of decency at all times.
	Finally, the allegations centre on the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, which is more than 300 years old and carries more battle honours on its regimental colours than any other infantry regiment of the line. Its battle honours include Quebec and Waterloo. It fought with distinction throughout the South African war, in France and Flanders, and at Ypres, the Somme, Paschendale and Gallipoli. It covered the evacuation at Dunkirk, fought in the far east and north Africa, and was one of the two assault battalions of the 3rd Division that captured the beachhead at the Normandy landings. In the recent campaign in Iraq, its commanding officer was awarded the distinguished service order, and the regimental sergeant-major was awarded the military cross. If wrong has been done, it is clear that it must immediately be dealt with, but let this House and the wider country keep in perspective 300 years of the most loyal, gallant and distinguished service to the Crown and the nation.

Adam Ingram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his message of support for our troops and the superb work that they are doing. He asked several questions about the authenticity of the photographs, but, as I said in my opening statement, it is not for Ministers to interfere and involve themselves in the minutiae of an ongoing investigation. It is a matter for the investigating authorities to bring to a conclusion. I therefore have no evidence one way or the other on the matter. Clearly, given the speculation outside, it is right and proper that the appropriate authorities are pursuing that line of inquiry.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) asked how many cases are currently in the process of investigation. So far, 33 cases of civilian deaths, injuries or ill treatment have been investigated in Iraq: 12 are ongoing, and 21 have been completed. Of the completed cases, 15 were found to have no case to answer, and six recommendations are currently being considered. That is the current position. Those recommendations will go through the appropriate process of law, which means independent of the chain of command and with no ministerial involvement.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about the training of our troops and I know that he is aware of the answer. We give our troops the highest level of training in all aspects of international law, the Geneva conventions and human rights issues. Indeed, we are renowned internationally for the work that we do in helping failed states to raise their standards through various post-conflict initiatives. We sometimes help countries to come back into the wider community of nations. Anyone visiting such countries would hear of the qualities spoken about by those who have been trained by our troops, showing that what we teach our troops is imparted with full vigour elsewhere.
	The hon. Gentleman rightly ended by highly commending the QLR, which is indeed a first-class regiment. He is right to point to the significant number of high awards received by its troops during the recent conflict in Iraq. I am sure that the vast majority of them, if not all, will be very concerned about these allegations.

Paul Keetch: I, too, thank the Minister for advance notice of his statement. I welcome it and I congratulate him on his words. We believe that there are serious doubts about the authenticity of the Daily Mirror photos. Whether or not they are genuine, I agree with the Minister that, the sooner we can sort out this story, the better for all concerned. However, there can be no doubt about the photos taken of US troops, or, indeed, those of UK forces taken by a fusilier who was arrested last year. I ask the Minister to tell us the outcome of that investigation.
	Liberal Democrat Members have asked many questions about the alleged instances of mistreatment. When will those questions be answered—they have not been answered since January—and how many legal cases does the Minister expect to be brought as a result of families' actions this week? It is suggested that the US military did not co-operate with the Red Cross at Abu Ghraib prison camp. Will the Minister give an assurance today that the Red Cross will be given full and complete access to all detainees held under UK control in Iraq?
	Finally, the Ministry of Defence stated last month that the European convention on human rights does not apply in Iraq, despite the fact that the UK has signed it and that many courts believe that it applies to the agents of those states that have signed it. Under what position and under what human rights laws are Iraqis held in UK custody in Iraq?
	The men and women of Her Majesty's armed forces have an unequalled reputation for professionalism and honour—and that includes the QLR. If they continue to demonstrate that in Iraq as they have been, the whole House and the country should support them. However, if that reputation is to be preserved, the Government must act on this matter with speed and with transparency.

Adam Ingram: In closing, the hon. Gentleman asked a pertinent question about the need for openness. That is why I said that I would seek to impart to the House as much information as possible about all these ongoing investigations when we are able to do so. Subsequently, the information will be imparted to the wider public. We must also bear it in mind that we have to protect the rights of everyone associated with what may be a legal process. It is not for us to judge—only, perhaps, to examine, to ask questions and to move the process forward by ensuring that all the proper procedures are being applied.
	The hon. Gentleman asked how many legal cases we expect to emerge from this matter. I cannot predict that. Aggrieved persons must determine what laws they will seek to apply in any given circumstances. Our best judgment is that the European convention on human rights does not apply. I assume that that will be tested in law, as I believe that a community of people exists who will seek to do just that. We know that some groups of lawyers have already indicated that they propose to bring actions against the Government in this matter. We shall have to see how all that plays out.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the International Committee of the Red Cross would be given full access. The answer is yes: we seek at all times to work closely with the ICRC, which sets very high standards. It is right that we give it access, and that we listen to any comments or criticisms that it may make about how we deal with people in our custody.
	I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's questions. If not, or if any other points arise, we can return to the matter at a later stage.

Peter Mandelson: Many aspects of this matter will worry people, and that is understandable. However, what worries me is that, although the leader in today's Daily Mirror says that the matter is the subject of "concern and investigation", the headline on the front page talks, apparently conclusively and as though it were a proven fact, of British Army torture of Iraqis. That is a most unfortunate piece of journalism. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to reaffirm that the rules of natural justice still exist in this country? Is not it an important principle that people against whom allegations are made remain innocent until they are proven guilty? Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that that principle will govern the approach of the Army and the Government to this whole matter?

Adam Ingram: I agree wholeheartedly with my right hon. Friend, and in my statement I tried to highlight the principle to which he refers. I also noted that the SIB is in touch with the Daily Mirror, and I hope that the newspaper will give the investigators the fullest co-operation.
	In its leader last Saturday, the Daily Mirror said that
	"for the sake of the British Army's reputation and the integrity of every decent member of our forces, those who carried out this and other savage acts must be court-martialled."
	I think that everyone can understand those sentiments, but the implication is that guilt has been established already. That is not the case. The Daily Mirror claims to know the identity of one of the attackers, saying that he and a colleague provided the photographs and the information that were the basis for the allegations. Nevertheless, the newspaper appears intent on protecting the identities of its informants, because, it says, the soldiers fear reprisals by the Army.
	I genuinely do not understand the concern about reprisals. I have every confidence that everyone with relevant information will be treated fairly and lawfully, and that their rights will be fully respected. That is why I hope—and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) will agree with me on this—that the Daily Mirror will reconsider its position and assist the investigating authorities in getting to the bottom of these most serious allegations.

Andrew Murrison: At each stage of the detention process, from apprehension to theatre internment facility, it is very important that there is external scrutiny by independent non-governmental organisations. That is helpful for individuals, and for Army units. What reports has the Minister received from external organisations about the way in which detainees have been handled?

Adam Ingram: I fully recognise the point made by the hon. Gentleman, whose question I sought to answer in my response to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch). We do not deny access, as the hon. Gentleman will know from his own military experience. We fully comply with the requirements placed on us by international law. Indeed, we often tend to go beyond what is asked of us, to ensure that appropriate NGOs have adequate access to prisoners. Sometimes we go further, and allow individuals to visit detainees as well. That allows tremendous scrutiny of what is going on.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether I had received any adverse or other reports. To date, I have received no such reports, but some may be in the process of being compiled. The ICRC is authoritative and operates in a precise and structured way. It will make known its concerns, and if we need to act on them, we will.

Ann Clwyd: The allegations, if true, shame every single one of us. Preventing abuse requires compliance with rules for the treatment of prisoners. I went to Abu Ghraib prison and the facility at Basra a few weeks ago. Many detainees in Iraq have been held virtually incommunicado under rules that have never been made public. I have been concerned about the general treatment of detainees since June and have made that point over and over.
	I have a particular case to raise. An Iraqi woman who was taken prisoner was held for a long time without charge. I went to her house in Baghdad where she told me her allegations of ill treatment. Those allegations were passed on to the appropriate authorities. They did not concern British troops. They were made against American troops. In some cases, such allegations have been proved. I must tell the Minister, who has always been most helpful in assisting me to visit prisons and talk to people in Iraq, that it must be made perfectly clear to the US military, as well as ours, that the Geneva conventions must apply in all cases when prisoners are held.

Adam Ingram: I pay genuine tribute to my hon. Friend, who has worked more than assiduously on all the tasks that she has just described and more. She is highly respected across the Iraqi civilian population, and rightly so.
	On her comments about the United States, I must say that that is not really a matter for the UK Government, although we would be concerned if any coalition partner were in breach of parts of international law to which they had subscribed. There is a process by which we could raise that with them while working alongside them.
	Insofar as our own troops and any mistreatment are concerned, I cannot respond to my hon. Friend's detailed points or any other cases that she may have in mind. I should be grateful if she would meet me to go through each example and see what we can do to take cases forward. I would be concerned if matters had been reported and not acted on.

Nigel Evans: The Queen's Lancashire Regiment has a base and a museum at Fulwood in Preston. The people of Preston and Lancashire are proud of their close association with the regiment for all the reasons that have been given about its distinguished past service, most recently in Bosnia and Northern Ireland.
	Does the Minister agree that it might have been better for the Daily Mirror to pass on the photographs at the beginning so that their veracity and validity could be worked out and an investigation started before allegations were thrown about? Will he assure us that there is a way in which any serviceman or servicewoman is able to complain should he or she believe that any wrongdoing has occurred so that it can be thoroughly investigated? Will he assure us that the current investigation will be speedy and thorough so that the good name of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment can be restored?

Adam Ingram: I echo those sentiments about the QLR and all the regiments that have served in Iraq and elsewhere in Her Majesty's name. So far as the Daily Record is concerned—[Hon. Members: "Daily Mirror".] Did I say record? What is in the Daily Mirror is a matter of record, so perhaps that is what I had in mind, although the two papers are in the same group. I am grateful to hon. Members for correcting me.
	In terms of what the Daily Mirror—I will say it again to make sure that I am not misunderstood—should have done, it must make its own judgment calls. It is currently assisting with the investigation and that is why I said that I hope that it will co-operate fully. These very serious allegations must be fully investigated and that can be done only if people co-operate fully, and that includes the journalists and editors of that newspaper.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about wrongdoing and whether service personnel would feel confident about reporting it. I hope so. Given the scrutiny—the correct scrutiny—of such allegations, and everything that we are doing in Iraq, I hope that all officers in the command chain realise that they have to act with the utmost integrity. I do not question their integrity by saying that, but given the nature of what has happened I am sure that they will encourage full compliance and openness throughout the ranks.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about a speedy and thorough investigation. I can promise a thorough investigation. Speed may be of the essence, but it should not be the priority. We do want to get to the bottom of the matter as quickly as possible, but it is better to get it right than to get it done quickly.

Gordon Prentice: The QLR is my local regiment and has the freedom of the town of Colne in my constituency. I wish to return to a question posed earlier by an Opposition Member. Has the Daily Mail—[Interruption.] I blame the Minister for that slip-up. Has the Daily Mirror been asked specifically if any money changed hands for the photographs? That is a central question, which has been asked by several hon. Members, but no answer has been given as yet.

Adam Ingram: I recognise my hon. Friend's interest in protecting the good name of the QLR, but he cannot have heard what I said. It is not for Ministers to interfere in the minutiae of investigations—[Hon. Members: "Why?"] Well, because if we answer one question, there will be another and then another. I therefore say to hon. Members who may be concerned about the issue that we should let the investigating authorities—the SIB of the Royal Military Police—carry out their actions according to their powers in the matter. The Daily Mirror has been asked by other newspapers—perhaps even the Daily Mail, although not the Daily Record—whether money changed hands. It is a matter for the newspaper. If it wants transparency from the armed forces, it should operate by the same standards.

Andrew MacKay: Will the Minister accept that at a time of war the armed forces and Ministers in our free, open society bear special responsibilities, but so do the media? It is especially incumbent on an editor such as Piers Morgan to satisfy himself completely that allegations are correct and photographs are accurate. If they turn out not to be so, will action be taken against him and his newspaper?

Adam Ingram: The right hon. Gentleman strays into areas for which I have no responsibility. It is a concern that when the press make such charges they can walk away having laid waste to people's reputations. The press have an obligation, but there is another issue. Those allegations have been spread across the Arab world, including Iraq, and the question arises whether lives have been put at risk by what may prove to be unfounded allegations. That should be on the consciences of those who have run such allegations. However, it is not for me to judge whether there would be any legal implications in that case.

Janet Anderson: While I understand what my right hon. Friend the Minister says about allowing the investigation and any possible legal process to take their course, does he agree that the allegations against the QLR are so serious that, should they prove to be unfounded, the editor of the Daily Mirror should resign forthwith?

Adam Ingram: I am conscious of the anger that has been expressed, but my focus is on the good name of Her Majesty's armed forces, not on the good name or otherwise of particular newspaper editors.

Adam Price: The Minister mentioned the European convention on human rights. Is he aware that a case against the Turkish armed forces, following an incident in northern Iraq, has already been ruled admissible by the European Court of Human Rights? In the light of that, and regardless of the legal opinion, will he not send a positive signal to the Iraqi people that the Government are making a policy decision that article 2 of the convention, on the right to life, and article 3, on the prohibition of degrading and inhuman treatment, apply equally to Iraqi citizens and to citizens of the United Kingdom?

Adam Ingram: I know the hon. Gentleman's position. He has been campaigning on a basis of presumed guilt in some cases, although no doubt he will disagree. The finger of suspicion has been pointed at our forces and we have debated that previously. In relation to the corpus of law that applies in this matter, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not implying that we do not apply international law with full rigour. The UK has the highest standards in its application of international law and its adherence to the Geneva convention. If any part of domestic law is wrapped up with that, as a result of a judgment, we have to apply that, too. We must carefully consider those parts of the law that are applicable and those that may or may not have import. That is a matter for best legal advice.
	I know that the hon. Gentleman has come to a conclusion. I do not know whether he is a lawyer or whether he has taken legal advice—his opinion may be political—but I prefer to wait and see the argument in the round.

Joan Humble: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as well as having a distinguished 300-year history, the Queen's Lancashire Regiment has more recently helped to rebuild 30 schools and two orphanages in Basra, and that it has also trained the police force in Basra? It is thus vital that the inquiry is undertaken as quickly as possible, given the caveats that my right hon. Friend has already mentioned, because the Queen's Lancashire Regiment and indeed our other forces in Iraq need to regain the trust of the people of Basra so that they can continue to do the vital work of rebuilding that society.

Adam Ingram: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the QLR and other regiments have done good work. They have made truly magnificent efforts, way beyond the call of duty, to re-establish—or establish—normal society in Iraq. Their good name has undoubtedly been besmirched, and we must demand all the information that is held by anyone so that we can find out the truth about the allegations. It is difficult to judge how much damage has been caused to our ongoing relationship with the people of Iraq, but I have no doubt that British troops and all that they do are held in high regard in our area of operation and that that will continue. That is why we must lay the matter to rest. Let us see whether the allegations are founded.

Vincent Cable: As British private security companies play an extremely important role in Iraq, can the Minister say what arrangements exist to regulate their relationship with Iraqi prisoners and civilians?

Adam Ingram: First, their staff will have to be properly trained and their capability assessed. They will then be obliged to comply fully with the legislation relevant to their operations. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with the details about the regulations under which those companies operate—there are legal constructs and that is another matter where we must get proper explanation into the public domain.

David Borrow: I share the concern expressed across Lancashire by colleagues from all parties about the impact of the allegations in the Daily Mirror on our constituents and on families involved at one level or another with the QLR. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the allegations were true they should have been reported when the incidents were seen by members of the QLR? Had they been reported at that time—last summer, if the allegations are true—six or nine months would have been saved in relation to the torture or harm to Iraqi prisoners that may have taken place. Will my right hon. Friend explain the duties of soldiers serving in Her Majesty's forces who see something that should not be happening?

Adam Ingram: All our troops are trained to report wrongdoing, no matter from what source. That deals with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. If true—of course, that is the important phrase—the incidents should have been reported much earlier, and we may have to establish why they were not, either during the investigation or at some point thereafter. If lessons have to be learned, we must ensure that no serving member of Her Majesty's forces feels obliged in any way whatsoever to cover up for wrongdoing, as that is a complete denial of what they are sent out to do in the name of this country.

Hugh Robertson: The fastest way to clear up this matter would be for the Ministry of Defence to have access to the Daily Mirror's sources. If that paper's editor is not prepared to give them up voluntarily, has the Ministry of Defence investigated whether there is any way in which under military legislation, such as the Army Acts or something similar, it can compel the Daily Mirror to reveal those sources, given the security implications?

Adam Ingram: We are too early in the process to give an opinion on that. We should call on the good name of the editor and the journalists of that newspaper to note the expressions of concern that have been raised in the House and elsewhere about the information that they claim to have—they state categorically that they have it—about those who carried out these acts. Perhaps they hold other information as well. We should allow them to co-operate; they are currently talking to our investigating officers, and we must take things step by step.

Gerald Kaufman: Has my right hon. Friend yet consulted the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission about what the code says about payments by a newspaper to those who have committed or are complicit in criminal offences? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if it is established that those offences were committed, the sternest action must be taken against those involved? I say this as someone who served for nine years as a member of the Daily Mirror's staff and as a Member of Parliament for Lancashire who has visited the war graves of young men in the Queen's Lancashire Regiment who died in their young manhood to defend the justice and rights of this country. Does he also agree that, if those offences are not shown to have been committed and the pictures are not shown to be authentic, the sternest action will be taken in those circumstances as well?

Adam Ingram: In this case, my focus has been on the allegations against members of the QLR. Although I treat all the attendant matters with equal seriousness, we will have to come to them at a later stage. Again, I hope that those in that newspaper and in other parts of the media that may have acted similarly will listen to the views expressed in the House, so that they realise that they should tread warily. Again, it is not for me to take such action, but we can seek to stimulate it. It is for others to judge whether there has been any wrongdoing and, if so, what penalties should be levelled against anyone who breaches any Act of Parliament. If the stories are untrue, we have to ensure that the QLR's good name is reinstated. We have a lot of work to do to ensure that those untruths are put to rest in Iraq and elsewhere, where members of Her Majesty's forces are serving in some very difficult circumstances.

Hugo Swire: While I have doubts about the authenticity of some of the photographs, I have no such doubt about the wisdom of the editor of the Daily Mirror in publishing them at this time. We underestimate at our peril the damage in Iraq and the wider Arab world that the allegations cause to the reputation of the allies. Has the Minister held any discussions with our American allies, given the timing of the release of some of the photographs that allege wrongdoing by the Americans? If so, will he inform us of the nature of those discussions and what priority the Ministry is giving to talking to the Americans about restoring our reputation in Iraq and winning back the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people?

Adam Ingram: In one sense, I do not believe that we need to talk to the United States if we consider the serious way in which senior members of that Administration have reacted to the appalling photographs that involve US troops. Clearly, talks take place at the highest level—between the Prime Minister and the President and between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and Donald Rumsfeld. All those discussions are continuing but we must bear in mind that the allegations that relate to the United Kingdom are very new. We must therefore establish the truth and get to the facts. If wrongdoing has occurred, the perpetrators must be brought to justice, but their human rights must be protected. We cannot and should not take away people's rights in law. We must therefore be careful about ascribing blame or pointing the finger before any evidence that can stack up in a court has been presented.
	The flavour of the comments today highlights the fine line that we are walking. Only time will tell the extent of the damage that has been done to our troops in Iraq and perhaps elsewhere.

Mark Hendrick: There is anger and sorrow among the soldiers of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment and their relatives and friends. The photographs have besmirched the name of the finest regiment in the country. If they are found to be fraudulent, will my right hon. Friend ensure not only that the regiment's reputation is restored but that legal action is taken against those who produced and published the photographs? Does he agree that, if they are found to be fraudulent, the Daily Mirror will henceforth be known to Labour Members as "The Dodgy Daily"?

Adam Ingram: I think that it is better to try to get to the facts. Although the reputation of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment—and the entire British Army—has been damaged, its good name ranks high internationally, as the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex said earlier. The more hon. Members continue to play in the same territory as those parts of the media that want to undermine the quality of the work that has been done—I do not place my hon. Friend in that category—the more they will drag down our troops' capacity to deliver the sort of normal society that we support. That applies not only to Iraq but to Afghanistan, the Balkans, Sierra Leone and other parts of our troubled globe. Big issues are at stake and we must all be careful in rushing to judgment. Let us get the facts, ascertain what has happened and take it from there.

Martin Smyth: While I agree that we should get the facts, does the Minister agree that, in the past, newspapers have rushed speedily into print with specious claims? One distinguished officer of the British Army, Colonel Tim Collins, was slurred but ultimately cleared. Given that some people have another agenda in the far east, Afghanistan and other places, Parliament and all our people must bear in mind the dangers that beset our troops.
	Did the editor of the Daily Mirror approach the Ministry of Defence to say that the treatment of Iraqi prisoners had been brought to his attention and to ask for comment or did he publish without verification or notice? Should not we all keep quiet until investigations show what really happened?

Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman has rightly referred to a previous case, and I am sure that other right hon. and hon. Members could enumerate other examples of the media and others rushing to judgment before they have established the true facts of the matter involved. I do not think that this should be a "knock-the-press" day, or that we should knock the press in this statement and the question and answer session thereafter. The Mirror notified the Department early on Friday that it was going to publish the photograph. We did, therefore, have notice, but I understand that the photograph might have been in the newspaper's possession for some time. We did not have a lot of notice, and that is why, when we did get the information, we acted so promptly; I think that it is right that we did so.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now move on; I have time-limited business to protect.

Domestic Energy Efficiency

Jim Cunningham: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for energy efficiency in relation to fuel poverty and social housing.
	The Bill will ensure that all agencies involved in the provision of social housing, both public and private, work towards the elimination of fuel poverty, particularly in the social and private housing sectors. It will also ensure that they provide information about effective insulation and the most efficient heating systems. This can be achieved in a number of ways. For example, proposals have been made to ensure that the new requirements under building regulations in the Government's Housing Bill apply to social housing as well as to the private sector.
	It is not my intention to substitute my Bill for the Government's Bill. My Bill will try to introduce a number of remedies that the Government could support and incorporate into any future legislation. It must be recognised that the Government have achieved a great deal on fuel poverty. Their fuel poverty strategy, published in November 2001, sets out policies for ending fuel poverty in vulnerable households by the target date of 2010.
	In the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs' UK fuel poverty strategy report for 2004, the Government have recognised that the elimination of fuel poverty remains one of their core objectives. They are committed to working with energy suppliers and organisations to focus on assisting the neediest households. This is the Government's second report on fuel poverty, and there are notable signs of progress being made. The estimated figures for 2003 show a further drop in the number of households in fuel poverty. The number of households in the UK estimated to be in fuel poverty in 2002 fell to about 2.25 million from about 3 million in 2001. Although it is evident that the Government have made progress on fuel poverty, more can be accomplished. A household that needs to spend more than 10 per cent. of its income on household fuel can be defined as suffering from fuel poverty. That includes maintaining a satisfactory heating regime.
	Fuel poverty is caused by a variety of factors, such as the energy efficiency of a home, fuel costs and household income. It can lead to damaged health, especially for disabled or elderly people and those suffering from long-term illness. The Government have a legal obligation to end fuel poverty by a specific target date.
	Various organisations need to be thanked for their commitment to the elimination of fuel poverty and for their recommendations on tackling this complex issue. The Fuel Poverty Advisory Group has made specific recommendations to the Government on improving the energy efficiency of homes and appliances, extensions to the successful schemes on energy to increase benefit take-up, and the use of the social fund to encourage the purchase of energy efficiency appliances instead of extremely inefficient appliances. Peter Lehmann, the chair of the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group, has warned:
	"Business as usual will not make sufficient inroads to remove fuel poverty and we hope that the Government takes our recommendations on board."
	An estimated 1.4 million vulnerable households in England—many containing older people—lived in fuel poverty in 2001, and could not afford sufficient warmth to ensure their health and comfort, due to a combination of poor housing, inefficient heating and low income. Peter Lehmann recommends a package of insulation and energy-saving light bulbs to enable householders to keep warm without extra cost or to save £100 a year on their fuel bill. That is a considerable sum when the income of a single pensioner on benefit can be as low as £5,500 per annum.
	The Carbon Trust is another organisation that has maintained a commitment to drag forward the UK's transition to a low carbon emission economy. Its programme, "Action Energy", promotes energy efficiency. The trust has estimated that 2.9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide was saved in 2002 as a result of its programmes. Following consideration of the various recommendations made by those organisations, my Bill will contain specific inspections and assessment of boilers and heating and cooling installations; energy certificates to establish general frameworks for calculating and integrating energy performances; the implementation of partnership programmes between health care professionals, local energy suppliers and social care professionals to identify those suffering from fuel poverty; and the development of standards for housing stock as well as the promotion of consumer awareness and demand for sustainable energy homes. Lastly, it will also contain a proposal to eradicate fuel poverty for all social tenants by requiring landlords to set, and work towards, achieving energy-efficient standards at an affordable cost.
	I recognise that the Government have done much to eliminate fuel poverty, but much more needs to be done if we are to eradicate fuel poverty and achieve the Government's targets. For those reasons, I propose to introduce a Bill and ask for the support of the House for the proposals that I have outlined.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Lyons, Mr. Brian H. Donohoe, Andy King, Mr. Bill Olner, Mr. Brian Jenkins and Mr. Jim Cunningham.

Domestic Energy Efficiency Bill

Mr. Jim Cunningham accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for energy efficiency in relation to fuel poverty and social housing: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 July, and to be printed [Bill 100].

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill

Considered in Committee.
	[Relevant documents: The First Report from the Scottish Affairs Committee, Session 2003–04, HC 77, on the Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change, and the Government's response thereto, and the First Special Report from the Scottish Affairs Committee, Session 2003–04, HC 514.]

[Sir Alan Haselhurst in the Chair]
	 — 
	Clause 1
	 — 
	Constituencies and Regions

Jimmy Hood: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in clause 1, page 1, leave out lines 5 to 11.

Alan Haselhurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 1—Commencement (No.1)—
	'(1)   The provisions of this Act shall come into force by order of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
	(2)   The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (1) until the appropriate date of the commencement of section 16 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.'.

Jimmy Hood: Mr. Haselhurst, I rise to—

The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman at the outset, but, so that we may get matters right, I remind the Committee that I should be addressed either as Mr. Chairman or as Sir Alan.

Jimmy Hood: My apologies, Mr. Chairman, are all the warmer as I am one who should know the procedures as well.
	The Bill when first hatched may have been considered a little blip in the Government's business programme, or, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson),
	"the legislative follow-up to a political fix"—[Official Report, 9 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 1180.]
	Along with a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends I enjoyed my right hon. Friend's comments on Second Reading and found them very, very interesting. In supporting some of what he said, I think we must ask what public interest the Bill serves when we seek to gerrymander a constitutional agreement made in Scotland, by Scotland, for Scotland? What are we seeking to do with the Bill? It is not a tidying-up exercise of some constitutional arrangement. It destroys fundamentally the consensus achieved in Scotland in support of the Scottish Parliament in the 1980s.
	The Bill will be passed tonight with the Government's comfortable majority, against what the then Secretary of State for Scotland and first First Minister described as the settled will of the Scottish people—the Scotland Act 1998. The consultations have been much vaunted, yet it was not explained why there had to be two, or that the first bash had to be extended for six months because little interest was shown. It appears that sometimes there can be a thin line between consulting people and canvassing support for causes.
	To those of my colleagues who do an exceptionally good job in the Scottish Parliament, and who do not get credit for their work but criticism, for reasons known better to those who seek to criticise them—and to anybody who may question my motives in forming my view—I want to make it clear that I am on their side. Those who thought of this fix to save the 129 MSP jobs were not looking after the real interests of MSPs. They were not serving the good governance of Scotland. They were involved in what my right hon. Friend said—a political fix—and were not thinking through its consequences.
	I caution my colleagues if they think that the Bill will serve such causes, whether or not it saves a few careers of a few senior politicians. If so, they have failed to read the small print, because the consequences of the Bill will be that we have at least four different electoral systems in Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland, to his credit, identified that early, and has accepted, as we all do, that the status quo is not defendable. If we are not to support the Scotland Act 1998, I say to my colleagues in Holyrood that it will be replaced by something that is far worse.
	Our colleagues on the Opposition Benches, both here and in Holyrood, will be arguing for full proportional representation—single transferable vote for parliamentary elections. Those who propose that are thinking of narrow political interests, not of what is right for the people of Scotland. I am delighted to take on the charge, because the Labour party has had historically, and still has, huge support in Scotland, which, by the way, is well earned. I do not disguise other motives by saying that the people are better served when they have a representative on whose door they can knock, to say, "I've got a problem."
	If the Bill is passed tonight, the boundary changes are made at the next general election and there are 59 MSPs instead of 72 or 73, the consequences will be quite interesting. On Second Reading I gave the example of the Lanark and Hamilton, East constituency, where there would be one Westminster MP, three first-past-the-post MSPs, 16 list MSPs and 20 councillors. The Scottish Parliament is now discussing the STV system, and talking about halving the number of councillors in Scotland. There would then be twice as many MSPs as councillors in one constituency.
	That does not stack up. That is why I am telling my colleagues in Holyrood that the 1998 Act represented the settled will of the Scottish people. It is what we campaigned for, what we had a referendum on, and what we were comfortable with. For some reason, however, people in high places outwith the governance of the people and the Parliament decided that it was better to keep 129 and accept all the consequences. I think that all the consequences are dire, and that Back Benchers like me have a responsibility to say so. When it happens, people should not be able to point the finger and say "Why did you not tell us this in Parliament?"—for I doubt very much that there will be many plaudits for those who support the measures we are discussing.

Michael Connarty: My hon. Friend has stressed the issue of the settled will of the Scottish people. Surely one of the biggest arguments against multiplying the number of election systems still further is provided by the present list Members, who flounder around in our constituencies sending press releases with absolutely no local relevance just so that they can get a snippet into the newspaper, and sticking up surgery notices in villages where they may or may not turn up for half an hour before turning up in another village 40 miles away. Should we not be dealing with that problem rather than producing yet more systems and yet more confusion for the electorate?

Jimmy Hood: I understand and sympathise with what my hon. Friend says, and might even go as far as to say that I agree with much of it, but I remind Members that it is all too simple to pick out the easiest argument and take your eye off the ball. We do not know who wanted the 129 MSPs to remain, but they took their eyes off the ball. I am talking about what is right for governance. The 1998 Act was thought through, and was part of a consensus on the constitutional convention.

Pete Wishart: rose—

Jimmy Hood: Is it not interesting that as soon as I mention the constitutional convention, the first Member to rise is from the Scottish National party, which wanted no part of it?

Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman speaks of a political fix and a consensus. The "political fix" includes some notable names, including the Scottish Labour party, the Scottish Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Electoral Commission. All those people believe in the 129: there is a consensus. I have heard no one speak in favour of a reduction in the number. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can say who supports it.

Jimmy Hood: I have tried to draw a distinction between canvassing and consultation. The political fix was fixed long before the SNP had an opportunity to get on board.

John Robertson: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the SNP had plenty of opportunity to take part in the constitutional convention and to formulate what was going to happen? It just chose not to do so.

Jimmy Hood: The constitutional convention was a difficult process for many of us. Some of us were dragged reluctantly to the table to agree to the electoral system—[Interruption.] Perhaps we were dragged kicking. We did not want anything to do with proportional representation. We know the dangers of proportional representation and of giving the 5 per cent. the power to say how the 95 per cent. will be governed. We know what we get from proportional representation. People say that votes under that system are fair. Well, they are unfair. It is power to the minorities, not to the majorities.

Alan Reid: The hon. Gentleman mentioned power to majorities and minorities. Does he accept that in Scotland all political parties are minorities in that no political party got anywhere near 50 per cent. of the vote?

Jimmy Hood: I accept that no system is absolutely perfect. Every system will always have problems of legitimacy, but first past the post has more legitimacy with the electorate than anything else. We are about to have an election on a proportional representation system. The last time we had European elections, it was a closed list. This time, it is an open list. Talk to some of my constituents, or even talk to me and ask what the difference is. There is not much difference between the two. It is a fix. Who are people voting to elect? Are they electing someone to represent them? They certainly are not under any list system.

Alex Salmond: Has there been a change in the proportional system for the European elections? The hon. Gentleman says that it has moved to an open list. It is still a closed list as far as I understand it.

Jimmy Hood: Is it a half-closed list or a half-open list? The hon. Gentleman has just proved the point. It is confusing him and it is confusing me. The election before the previous one was first past the post. Then we went on to a PR system. Now we are on the new system. Turnout was 24 per cent. in 1999. Here is a wager. If turnout is more than 24 per cent. in the June election—and I will try to ensure that it is—the tea in the Tea Room is on me. That is how confident I am.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jimmy Hood: I ask hon. Members not to tempt me. I do not intend to speak for too long. I just want to make a few points, and the more I am tempted, the longer I will be. The constitutional convention got consensus. Everyone was okay. We went for a referendum and thankfully all the parties got together then and we got the vote.
	I remember that there was a huge row. I do not know what the rows were like in the Opposition parties but in the Labour party it was quite difficult. In fact, a Front-Bench spokesman resigned when the Prime Minister announced that we were going to have a referendum to entrench the will of the Scottish people.
	I remember going to the Scottish executive committee of the Labour party to hear the Prime Minister when he came to put his case—I was on the Scottish executive committee then. I supported him then overwhelmingly. The biggest reason for supporting the referendum was that one of our greatest concerns during the whole debate in favour of a Scottish Parliament was what guarantee we had that what we gave the people of Scotland with one Government could not be taken away by another Government. In other words, we were worried about the Tories. If we gave Scotland a Parliament, would the Tories take it away or change it? The biggest argument for a referendum was that it would entrench the will of the Scottish people. Once that was done, no Government would try to amend it. However, the first attempt to amend it has come from our own Government.

Mark Lazarowicz: My hon. Friend is arguing strongly that the Scotland Act should not be changed with regard to the 129 MSPs. However, his name is attached to every single amendment that effectively calls for an end to the PR system for the Scottish Parliament. Surely there is some inconsistency. On the one hand he does not want to change the number of MSPs; on the other, he is happy to call for the abolition of PR.

Ian Davidson: He is just a lawyer.

Jimmy Hood: He is a courageous lawyer to intervene on me to ask about PR. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) who used his casting vote to give us PR when the Scottish Labour party would not have supported it. Perhaps we would not be having this debate were it not for my hon. Friend. We would have had the Scottish Parliament, because we had a big enough majority in 1997 to deliver it. We would have had first past the post, and a Labour Government in Holyrood. I admire his gall in intervening on that subject.

Mark Lazarowicz: I realise that, eventually, my casting vote will be engraved on my hon. Friend's heart: he seems to remember it long after everyone else has forgotten. If someone had to use a casting vote, it suggests that at least half of those involved were also in favour of PR at the time. Leaving that aside, will my hon. Friend answer the question that I posed in my previous intervention?

Jimmy Hood: It should not be difficult for my hon. Friend to work it out but, as a lawyer, he may be confusing those who were for, those who were against and those who were in between. He may have found out on his travels that I have been, am and always will be for first past the post. I have never been seduced by any proportional representation system. If it had been left to me, the Scottish convention would not have gone for PR. Had I been in my hon. Friend's position, we would not have had PR. I think that we are being pushed towards a full PR system, away from the compromise of part first past the post, part PR. If so, I am on the side of first past the post and I will do what I can to argue that case.

Pete Wishart: I am always interested in the views of the hon. Gentleman on PR. For the comedy value, will he give us his view on the decision of his colleagues in Holyrood to adopt PR for local government so enthusiastically?

The Chairman: Order. I may be able to help. The debate is moving into much more generalised matters. I ought to remind the Committee of the amendment that I hope the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) will propose. If we go too far afield—I have allowed the hon. Gentleman 22 minutes of background—the Chair may take a niggardly view on the stand part debate.

Jimmy Hood: Thank you, Sir Alan, for rescuing me from myself, if nothing else. The amendment seeks to delay the enactment of something that will have consequences for local government. Many of my hon. Friends—although not too many of them, because we could never have enough—are experienced in local government. I am fortunate to have been in local government for 14 years and I know the value of local government from having been in it and seen what it can do.
	As hon. Members know, I do not make too many party political points, but during the years of the Thatcher Government we had two institutions that we could go to for defence. We had the trade unions, which were important at the time, although Baroness Thatcher was set against them, and we had local authorities, which protected us in some good measure. It took the Thatcher Government a long time to damage the local authorities, although they abolished the metropolitan councils and did away with the Greater London council. It was important that we looked to our local authorities and that is why I value local government; I have been in there and I value it. The people who value it more, however, are the people who rely on it more. As I said earlier, we do not want to have a situation where no one goes and knocks on people's doors to get them to respond. PR would do away with all that in local government.

John Barrett: rose—

Brian Wilson: rose—

Jimmy Hood: I am going to move on, but I will give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson).

Brian Wilson: I want to support my hon. Friend and bring him back to his amendment. There is unnecessary division here, because there seems—I wonder whether my hon. Friend will agree—to be a remarkable degree of consensus in the Chamber. The consensus in favour of maintaining coterminous boundaries has extended, not decreased, since our last discussion. The nationalists, who tended to ridicule the principle last time, are now signed up to coterminous boundaries. No one on our side supports what is going through. The Tories oppose it. There is remarkable consensus, which my hon. Friend will want to build on. The only people who support the measure that is going through might be a couple of Liberals and perhaps the Minister. Everyone else regards it as a load of old rubbish.

Jimmy Hood: I thank my right hon. Friend for those helpful and supportive comments. He is absolutely right. Coterminosity is the key to anything that we do. Without it, I do not know where we would be. Perhaps it is difficult to get our heads around the issue, and perhaps we are just using figures and not thinking it through, but we should seriously try to imagine life as a Westminster MP with 10 councillors and 20 MSPs, with everyone going down different roads on the same subject. What we have is a war between the political classes, with members of the chattering classes starting to score points off one another.
	If we have gone into politics to do anything, surely it is to serve—to serve our communities and to help our constituents. They seem to be well down the pecking order when we discuss this constitutional reform and we need to put them back up it. The No. 1 priority on our agenda should be how we serve them, not how we find a political fix that suits all parties.

Peter Duncan: I am trying to get to the root of the hon. Gentlemen's amendment. If, as the right hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) suggests, the Bill is a load of old rubbish and there is little support for it across the Chamber, why is it being introduced and what does the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) think that that says about the power balance in the Scottish Labour party?

Jimmy Hood: I shall resist the temptation from the hon. Gentleman, but I shall say this: the Bill deserves the criticism that it has attracted and my right hon. Friend was right to say that there are not many people who argue its case, although a few loyal souls have put their heads above the parapet. Perhaps that tells the story better than any speech in the House of Commons.
	To seek enactment of the Bill before the commencement of section 16 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 is evidence that the Government are in difficulty and are seeking shortcuts to cement this political fix. I commend the amendment and the new clause to the Committee.

Pete Wishart: Unlike the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), I wish to speak to the amendment. I support it not for any reason that he gave but because I hope that the Secretary of State will take this opportunity—this window of delay—to ensure that the Scottish Parliament is consulted and gives its consent before any changes are made to its voting arrangements or how its membership is determined.
	It would be almost inconceivable for such a significant change to be effected without consent. If the Scottish Parliament is to make such changes work, it needs to be on board. The idea that the House could impose them on a possibly unco-operative Scottish Parliament is simply not tenable and should be rejected out of hand. It would be almost impossible for a working relationship to continue in such circumstances.

Ian Davidson: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that Westminster should not impose a system of election on the Scottish Parliament without its consent, does he also take the view that the Scottish Parliament should not impose a system of election on Scottish local government without its consent?

Pete Wishart: The Scottish local authorities are fully engaged in the debate about the single transferable vote. The Scottish Labour party has just enthusiastically accepted proportional representation for local government and it should be congratulated on that big step forward. Labour Members should be cheering that to the rafters.

Tom Clarke: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, as I always do. I have a closer link with the Scottish Labour party—if I may say so, with my modest local government background—than he has, and I can find no support for PR in local government anywhere in Scotland. Of course, you would rule me out of order, Mr. Cook, if I referred to the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, but I hope that they will bear that view in mind.

Pete Wishart: I can detect no support for PR for Scottish local government on the Government Benches here, which is truly remarkable given that it is now Labour party policy. We are witnessing the emergence of two different Labour—

Frank Cook: Order. I have no wish to inhibit the enjoyment that is evident in the Chamber, but the Committee has already been admonished to the effect that it is seriously endangering any debate on clause stand part if that enjoyment continues in the same vein. We are not debating PR anywhere, so can we please make our comments more specific to the amendment?

Pete Wishart: Of course, I shall return to the amendment, Mr. Cook, but it is interesting that there seem to be two Labour parties emerging: Lanarkshire Labour in Edinburgh, and London Labour down here—and never the twain shall meet.

Brian Wilson: I am not enjoying this at all, Mr. Cook. I want to get away from this banter and recognise the seriousness of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. If, for whatever reason, the nationalists are supporting an amendment calling for postponement until 2006, is that not a point of the utmost seriousness? As the nationalists are the official Opposition in the Scottish Parliament, and they support the amendment, and the Tories support it, and the vast majority of my colleagues support it, why on earth is the measure being driven through today?

Pete Wishart: That is a very good question, and the right hon. Gentleman can put it to his Front Benchers if he wants to. I have said clearly why I want a postponement until 2006. I want the Secretary of State to be able to consult, and seek consent from, the Scottish Parliament. That should be a prerequisite for any change in membership to, or voting arrangements for, the Scottish Parliament.
	We know that the membership, voting arrangements and constitution of the Scottish Parliament are matters reserved to this House. I have heard no good reason why that should be the case other than, "That's just the way it is." We should remember this House's record on these arrangements. It put in place, and enthusiastically adopted, the additional member system. It has not exactly covered itself in glory in dealing with these issues, perhaps because it got them wrong before. Let us think about giving the decision to somebody who might get it right, because we certainly have not got it right here so far. We have had the additional member system for only five years, yet we already have had seven amendments to try to put right a decision that was clearly wrong in the first place.
	The Scottish Parliament is perhaps unique among European legislatures, in that it has no right to determine its own voting arrangements and voting system. I have looked at some European legislatures, and even the most modest domestic regional assembly has the right to a say about its membership and voting arrangements. The Lander in Germany, for example, are responsible for their own constitutions. They can determine their own size, which can vary from 51 members in the small Saarland region, to 231 in the most populous area of North Rhine Westphalia. Surely, that is right. Is it not a sign of maturity and responsibility that any self-respecting Parliament worth its salt should have that responsibility and key function?
	All hon. Members will agree that the Scottish Parliament is now a fully grown institution. It is well into its second term and is the predominant and pre-eminent political institution in Scotland. The people of Scotland expect the Scottish Parliament to clarify and personify the national voice. Surely it should be allowed at least a say in its membership and voting arrangements.
	A couple of weeks ago, I was fortunate enough to be with several hon. Members in Dover house, where we heard about the new Scottish social attitudes survey. During that session, we heard the key concerns about the performance of the Scottish Parliament and discovered that the Scottish people are several steps ahead of us politicians. They want increased powers for the Scottish Parliament—[Hon. Members: "No, they don't."] Hon. Members say that they do not, but they should look at the Scottish social attitudes survey. Every survey commissioned in the past couple of years has suggested that more than 50 per cent. of the Scottish people want increased powers for the Scottish Parliament. That is a matter of fact. Given that the Scottish people want increased powers for the Parliament, we should at least make sure that we consult, and seek consent from, the Scottish people in respect of the Scottish Parliament's voting arrangements.

Mark Lazarowicz: I, too, was at that presentation. The hon. Gentleman will recall that, at the end, the Minister warned against interpreting statistics too selectively. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that one conclusion of the survey was that support for devolution has increased since the referendum, whereas support for independence continues to slide?

Pete Wishart: We are debating particular systems and I will continue to put the case for independence, just as the hon. Gentleman will doubtless continue to put the case for devolution. Who is in the best position to assess the requirements of the Scottish Parliament in terms of its size and membership?

Michael Connarty: The hon. Gentleman has wandered away from the amendment. He started by saying that he supported the amendment, which would in fact postpone implementation of the changes. Will he take a little time to tell us why his party thinks that the changes should be postponed, rather than focusing on his own amendment—it dealt with the role of the Scottish Parliament—which was not selected?

Pete Wishart: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I have already done that. I want this delay and window of opportunity to be used by the Secretary of State to seek the consent of the Scottish Parliament. In not addressing the amendment, I would be entirely consistent with the hon. Member for Clydesdale, who spent 25 minutes before he even got close to addressing it.
	I can sense that I am stretching your patience, Mr. Cook, so I will conclude. As I said, who is in the best position to assess the voting requirements for membership to the Scottish Parliament? Is it this House with its increasing and developing hostility to the Scottish Parliament—as evidenced by the remarks of some Labour Members today—or those who work in the Scottish Parliament who are accountable to the Scottish people for the decisions that they take? Surely those who live and work there and who are accountable to the Scottish people should be responsible for the voting and membership arrangements of the Scottish Parliament.
	The Secretary of State is happy to have his new commission report jointly to him and the First Minister. I congratulate him on that, because it shows that he is prepared to see a role for the Scottish Parliament in all of this. He obviously sees the Scottish Parliament having a role in developing arguments about its voting and membership arrangements. All I am asking for now is to have built into the Bill his acknowledgement that the Scottish Parliament has an important role and the fact that consent should be sought before bringing about any change to its voting or membership arrangements.

Brian Wilson: I shall be brief. I did not intend to speak at all, because I said my piece on Second Reading. However, I see some glimmer of hope in what we have heard so far, which we should build on. I am not interested in the banter or why the Scottish National party is supporting the amendment. However, the fact that it is doing so is of considerable significance, so we should examine the amendment to see whether something productive could emerge from it.
	I shall briefly outline the sequence of events that led us to this point. The Government made a commitment to reduce the number of Scottish seats at Westminster. That is settled and agreed: no one disputes it. The logic of that position, as enshrined in the Scotland Act 1998, was that the number of seats in the Scottish Parliament should be correspondingly reduced. At that point, the fix that my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) described took place. There were discussions and it was concluded—wrongly, in my view—that the political imperative was to retain the 129 MSPs, so an amendment to the Scotland Act would be necessary.
	I believe that the fix was arrived at not because the overwhelming burden of Scottish opinion was in favour of 129 MSPs, but because the other political parties would perceive it as bad faith if the number of MSPs were reduced unilaterally by a decision taken at Westminster. That is why the unsatisfactory compromise facing us—to cut the number of MPs at Westminster without reducing the number of MSPs at Holyrood—was arrived at.
	I understand how that was all agreed, and I have already said that I believe that it was the wrong decision. I also understand the difficulty of escaping from it if the charge of bad faith could be levelled again for not implementing the agreement, but what we have today is something quite different. From a range of standpoints, virtually everyone in the House has come to accept the absurdity and lack of reason in what is being done.
	At this point I shall revert to my speech on Second Reading, in which I made it clear that I do not approach the matter from a party political or even a constitutional point of view. The only direction that I come at it is from the interest of our constituents—a fact that seems to have been totally overlooked in the calculations of those who created the fix. What is being created is gratuitous confusion, misunderstanding, cynicism and, in some cases, real deprivation for our constituents. In particular there will be gratuitous and quite unnecessary confusion over constituency boundaries—where it has never existed, was not envisaged under the Scotland Act and about which no one in Scotland has any interest in creating now.

Alex Salmond: We may be talking slightly at cross purposes. Our argument is that there is a consensus—certainly in the Scottish Parliament, where everyone except the Conservatives agree—that the 129 MSPs should be retained. My hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) is arguing—I think, persuasively—that, when it comes to designing an electoral system for the new Parliament, those in charge of the process of producing, hopefully, a more satisfactory system than the present one should be the Scottish parliamentarians themselves.

Brian Wilson: I fully understand that. I understand the SNP's reasons, which are slightly different from my reasons. I do not necessarily disagree, but I have different reasons for opposing the proposal and for supporting my hon. Friend's amendment. That, however, is a secondary issue. The point is that the SNP is supporting the amendment, as the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) made crystal clear. I was so interested that I requested confirmation in an intervention.
	What the hon. Member for North Tayside is saying should be of interest to the Government. Any postponement would be made not out of cynicism, but for the reasons that I am setting out. Presumably, the statement of policy that the Scottish nationalists have made is the same as what they are saying in Edinburgh. The proposal has the support of the official Opposition in Westminster, and of the great majority of those Labour Back Benchers who are involved in the matter. Surely, therefore, it should be possible to hold some all-party discussion about how we go forward. Why does there have to be this lemming-like procession towards an outcome that everyone knows is wrong? The victims of that outcome would be our constituents.
	A lifeline has been thrown today, and it should not be blithely ignored. If the Committee ignores it today, I hope that those along the Corridor will take note. There can be no justification for going ahead with a plan that no party in this Chamber supports.

Michael Connarty: I follow my right hon. Friend's logic in supporting the amendment, which would postpone the implementation of the legislation. However, he said earlier that he wanted a different system, so it seems that he is arguing against the result, rather than the time scale. If, after a postponement of a number of years, the same proposals were brought forward again, would he oppose them?

Brian Wilson: With respect, that is not even an interesting hypothetical argument: it is just a hypothetical argument. We are talking about something that could happen years from now. I have always maintained that no logical system of voting practices in Scotland would contain the provisions that will be driven through the House tonight.
	I have no problem with the Scottish nationalist amendment that would introduce a system of single transferable votes based on contiguous constituencies. However, that is just my personal view. If the introduction of the Bill were to be delayed, all-party talks could be held and a logical structure for Scottish constituencies arrived at. There are plenty of formulae available for avoiding all the pitfalls in the Bill.
	Even at this late stage, we should build on the wide consensus that exists. We should not drive through a Committee of the whole House a measure whose real victims, I repeat, would be our constituents. The only winners would be the tiny minority of politicians with a vested interest in not losing face through backing down on this matter.

Peter Duncan: I am glad that I was able to hear the Scottish nationalist spokesman announce his party's change of policy on the matter. I have great sympathy with the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), who wants to amend the Bill in a way that would render its format acceptable to him and his colleagues. Clearly, the Bill was drafted in a very expert manner. It took a long time, and the aim was to restrict as much as possible the debate on any amendments that might be tabled. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman has come up with a proposal that should be of interest to hon. Members of all parties in the Chamber.
	There is a consensus across the political spectrum, on both left and right—among Back Benchers and, I respectfully submit, most Front Benchers too—that the Bill is a shambles. No one wants what it proposes, and the result is chaos and confusion. Everyone knows that it will have a hugely detrimental effect on election turnout, yet we are expected to wave it blithely through the Chamber.
	I have great sympathy for the amendment, and for the endeavour of the hon. Member for Clydesdale to secure a postponement. The amendment would allow another opportunity for reflection. The incidence of U-turns among Government Front Benchers has become somewhat frequent lately, so perhaps there is a chance that the Government will make another—who knows? That would be a U-turn on a U-turn, as the whole Bill already amounts to a U-turn on previous Government policy.
	This is an opportunity for Labour Back Benchers to engage more productively with the Minister. I counsel them against falling out with anyone, but if we cannot get all parties in Scotland to recognise that we are sleepwalking towards an electoral system disaster and feel unable to do anything about it, there is something deeply wrong with how we organise politics in Scotland. We all know that disaster is looming. The amendment gives us a chance to take some time before we take an irreversible action.

John Robertson: Why should we not want to wait to formulate a decent Bill and why do we have to rush into things? The consultation organised by the Government was a sham and a waste of everybody's time; the Labour Members who did not take part knew that. I want the Minister and the Secretary of State to take that fact on board and, in the words of the song, "Tae think again". They should do a proper consultation.
	It is my opinion, unlike the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart), that the Scottish people do not have the feeling that they did for the Scottish Parliament. We won their hearts and minds for the original vote, but the fine detail was not discussed then. Today, we are discussing fine detail, and the amendment gives us a chance to take another look at that. Why anyone would not want to do that I cannot understand. My colleagues among Members of the Scottish Parliament certainly see the need to look at the matter again, and I am sure that Opposition MSPs feel the same.
	I want to hear why the Liberals, who intend to oppose the amendment, do not want to make the Bill better. Why do they want to disrupt the whole Scottish political system and then, following a commission, do it all over again? Why would they want to do that twice, unless it was for political motives or so that they could put the Scottish people off voting? I would not put that past them; they have not distinguished themselves in getting out their own vote, whatever has happened with everybody else's.
	We have to engage in a conversation, like the big conversation that the Prime Minister is having. We have to listen to the people. I agree that we have to listen to the Scottish Parliament; I have no problem with that. Then again, the Scottish Parliament also has to listen to us, and we have legitimate cause for concern.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) has moved an excellent amendment that has the support of two of the Opposition parties and many Labour Back Benchers. I doubt that many people in Scotland feel differently from me. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment, to look again and to bring forward an Act that the people of Scotland can be proud of, rather than one that they do not understand.

John Thurso: I listened with great interest to the introduction to this short debate given by the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood). He made a full and eloquent speech, and I waited for him to explain his amendment. I waited quite a long time, and I am not entirely certain—it must be due to my powers of comprehension rather than his eloquence—that I fully understand what he seeks to achieve. As I understand it, the amendment would simply delay the Bill's provisions until 2006.

Jimmy Hood: The hon. Gentleman has been unkind to himself; he has understood exactly what the amendment would do.

John Thurso: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming that I have read the papers correctly. I shall not disappoint Labour Members, because I have to say that I disagree fundamentally with his proposition. Like the right hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), I believe that this is an important matter that goes to the heart of how the people of Scotland are represented. As he rightly says, it is our constituents who will benefit—or suffer—from whatever we choose to do this afternoon.
	However, I differ from the right hon. Gentleman in that I believe that this modest Bill is highly desirable. It will retain the status quo and will not make any great changes to the voting system. It contains nothing that was not foreseen during the passage of the Scotland Act 1998. All that will happen is that the status quo of 129 MSPs will be preserved, which was the will of all those who spoke in the Scottish Parliament when the issue was debated.

Brian Wilson: On balance, would the hon. Gentleman prefer the status quo or a variant of the status quo based on contiguous boundaries?

John Thurso: I would have liked to have had time to deal with the matter properly in this Parliament before the next general election. Given that the Government did not consider the matter early enough in this Parliament, we are left with a choice between contiguous boundaries at some point in the future—which would not happen under the present legislation—or the chance to preserve the status quo. The best option is to preserve the status quo and to seek to have an input into the commission that the Secretary of State has set up. We will have to see what conclusions the commission reaches after input from all interested parties on the issues of coterminosity and the best voting system for the Scottish Parliament.

Pete Wishart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the amendments would significantly change the membership of the Scottish Parliament and the way in which it is constructed? They would do away with most of the additional Members and mean that two Members would be elected from most constituencies. We do not know what we will have by the end of the debate, because these amendments could change the face of the Scottish Parliament fundamentally.

John Thurso: If the amendments were successful, my party's position on Third Reading might well change. However, at this point and given the likelihood that the Bill will emerge little changed, my party will support the Bill.
	The Bill—including clause 1—would not have any impact on the voting system. I hope that it is not uncharitable to point out that one effect of new clause 1 would be to delay the implementation of the changes that the Boundary Commission recommended for elections to this House. That might be one aim of certain Labour Members.My party sees no reason for delay and we wish the Government's proposals to be enacted. We want the status quo at Holyrood to be preserved, which is the settled will of Scotland, and we want the commission to do its work as soon as possible. We will provide our input into that process and await the results.

Ian Davidson: The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) mentioned the commission and how it will be conducted, as well as the issue of timing. The amendment is all about timing. When the result of the first consultation became known—other hon. Members have given their opinions on its validity—part of the fix was a commission at some vague and unspecified time in the future. That was then moved forward and promises were made that the commission would be set up quickly, that it would report quickly and that its recommendations would be implemented quickly.
	However, if the commission is to be set up almost immediately and if it works hard and produces a report that may be implemented—as we have been told—before 2007, why are we making changes to the system now? We might have to change it again before 2007. Either the suggestion that the commission will report and that its recommendations will be enacted by that time has been put forward when there is no guarantee of success, or we are duplicating work that will be done later on in any case. In such circumstances, clarity from the Government about their intentions is essential.

Anne McGuire: I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. By way of introduction, I will restate the two commitments that underpin the Bill from the Government's point of view. We are committed to reducing the number of Westminster MPs to 59, as a result of the boundary commission proposals. We are also committed to maintaining 129 MSPs in the Scottish Parliament. Those are the twin pillars that support the Bill.
	I hope that colleagues will accept that we did not approach those issues in some Machiavellian way but that we actually consulted the Scottish people through the organisations that represent them. I put that on record so that we do not read in Hansard that somehow real people out there were not consulted. In total, there were 237 responses to the consultation; of those, 21 were from councils, including COSLA—the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. There were responses from the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Executive, Scottish Parliament groups, 27 individual MSPs and so on.
	Colleagues who have studied the history of the consultation know that there were responses both from civic and political Scotland before the Government made up their mind to maintain 129 MSPs.

Jimmy Hood: My hon. Friend entertained us at Second Reading with the impressive list to which she has just been referring, but can she tell us who responded to the first consultation—the process that she had to extend for six months?

Anne McGuire: I am glad that my hon. Friend raises the alleged extension of the consultation process. I assure the Committee that the consultation process was not extended; it ran from December 2001 to the end of March 2002—exactly as planned and announced. It is regrettable that we seem to be talking about the claim that the process was extended because in fact it never was.

Mark Lazarowicz: Can my hon. Friend inform the Committee whether there was a great upsurge of opinion in the consultation to support the position set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood)?

Anne McGuire: It is fair to say that some people supported the position taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale. I should like to put on record the fact that my hon. Friend has been entirely consistent. His response to the consultation stated that he thought there should be a reduction in the number of MSPs and that the Scotland Act 1998 should be enacted in its entirety regardless of any other factor. He has been wholly consistent in his approach and for that I congratulate him.

Helen Liddell: I may have missed this point when my hon. Friend was going through her list of people who had replied to the consultation, so can she tell us how many Members of this House replied and how many were opposed to the maintenance of 129 MSPs?

Anne McGuire: My right hon. Friend is right to suggest that some Members who responded to the consultation asked for the Scotland Act to be enacted in its entirety, but the overwhelming majority of those MPs who responded wanted the Scottish Parliament to maintain the position at 129 MSPs.

Anne Picking: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as I have said many times, there are consultations and there are meaningful consultations? Some of us said vociferously that the consultation should consider the whole voting system, that the voting system and the Act should not be considered in isolation and that we should deal with the bigger picture. We now see the folly of our ways, as we seek to justify what we are trying to ramrod through today, even though it is not based on a meaningful consultation.

Anne McGuire: I fully appreciate that some colleagues are struggling with this, but we cannot avoid the fact that a consultation exercise was held on preserving the number of MSPs. I accept that some of my hon. Friends think that the consultation should have been wider, but it took place within the remit and context laid down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) at the time, and we have the results of that consultation process.

Alex Salmond: rose—

Bill Tynan: rose—

Anne McGuire: I will take an intervention from the leader of the Scottish National party because I am particularly interested in the position that the SNP has adopted this afternoon.

Alex Salmond: I am glad that the Minister is doing so because, unlike others, our concern is not with the figure of 129—the result of the consultation was overwhelming—but with the fact that the Bill is subject to amendment that would fundamentally alter the electoral basis of the Parliament. The Secretary of State can set up the commission, but will the Minister assure the Committee that she thinks it inconceivable that an altered electoral system could be imposed on the Scottish Parliament without its consent?

Anne McGuire: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it perfectly clear on Second Reading that we have established an independent commission to consider some of the concerns, including those about electoral matters and—dare I say?—some of those raised by my right hon. and hon. Friends about coterminosity.

Bill Tynan: My hon. Friend makes play of the consultation process that took place and the fact that that resulting decision seemed to produce the figure of 129. Does she believe that that consultation process resulted in the decision to reduce the number of MPs to 59?

Anne McGuire: With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, the very purpose of the consultation process was to consider whether there was support for maintaining the number at 129 in the Scottish Parliament, essentially to decouple the number of MPs in Westminster and the number of MSPs in Scotland.
	Let me move on specifically to the amendment because it is important to reflect not just on what has been said today, but on what the amendment would mean if it were agreed to this evening. Amendment No. 8 would remove the provisions that introduce schedule 2 to the 1998 Act, which makes provision to deal, if necessary, with the period before the functions of the boundary commission for Scotland are transferred to the Electoral Commission. The proposed replacement—new clause 1—would give the Secretary of State the power to bring the provisions of the Act into force, but only after the commencement of section 16 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
	Section 16 of the 2000 Act relates to the transfer of functions of the boundary commission and allows the Secretary of State to transfer the boundary commission for Scotland's functions to the Electoral Commission
	"at such time as the Secretary of State, being satisfied that they have no further functions to perform, by order directs."
	The Government previously said that the current boundary commission's functions would not transfer until it had completed its reviews. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale believes that the amendment reflects that.
	However, the amendments would delay the Bill's enactment until after the boundary commission for Scotland had reported to the Secretary of State on its current review, had been formally wound up and had its functions transferred to the Electoral Commission. If the amendments were accepted, the order required to implement the boundary commission's report would have to include a provision for amended regional boundaries for the Scottish Parliament election as well as that for a reduction in the number of seats at Westminster. The amendments would therefore proportionately reduce the number of Scottish Parliament constituencies for the time being since, at that stage, no power would exist to decouple them from Westminster seats. That is why I find the Scottish National party's position utterly perverse.
	If SNP members support the amendment, they will vote for a reduction in the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament.

Pete Wishart: That is not the case.

Anne McGuire: If the hon. Gentleman is right, I should like to hear him argue with greater force than he expressed in his contribution.

Pete Wishart: I am delighted to have the opportunity to restate my earlier point. If the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) were accepted, such a fundamental change to the voting arrangements of the Scottish Parliament would have to be a matter for that body, which would have to consent to it. It is ludicrous to say that we can sign up to something that could change fundamentally the nature of the Scottish Parliament.

Anne McGuire: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman realises which amendments we are currently debating. I tell him in all sincerity and generosity that if he and his party vote for the amendments, they will vote for a reduction in the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament as a consequence of not decoupling. That would be the result of the amendments, which make no provision for maintaining 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament.

Alex Salmond: Will the Under-Secretary give way?

Anne McGuire: Here comes the cavalry.

Alex Salmond: A few seconds ago, the Under-Secretary said that the Secretary of State had given an assurance that, if any change were made to the electoral arrangements, either through his commission or amendment to the Bill, it would be inconceivable to impose it without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. That is the position that she outlined. [Interruption.] A few seconds ago, she said that the Secretary of State had given that assurance. I merely ask her to restate what is already on the record.

Anne McGuire: It is unwise to put words into my mouth. I said that the commission would consider a general consensus throughout Scotland as part of developing consensus on moving forward on coterminosity and voting systems.
	I revert to the perversity of the SNP position on the amendments. I repeat that, if they were accepted, the boundary commission's report would have to include a provision for amending the regional boundaries for the Scottish Parliament elections.

Alex Salmond: Will the consensus that the Under-Secretary seeks through the commission or through amendment include the Scottish Parliament, on which the electoral system is being imposed? Will she say that it would be inconceivable to impose a new electoral system without the consent of the Parliament that will use it?

Anne McGuire: The hon. Gentleman continues to fail to understand the fundamentals of the constitutional arrangement under which we currently work. The electoral system for the Scottish Parliament, whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not, is part of the constitutional settlement that established that body and is reserved. That is the top and bottom of the matter. However, having said that, I want to make it clear that, during our discussions on the matter, we have ensured that representatives of the Scottish Parliament, whether through its political or Executive structure, have been involved in the consultation. Earlier, I read out the list of those who were involved.

Brian Wilson: Are not the principles of this debate more important than the legalistic mumbo-jumbo about the precise translation of amendments provided by lawyers? If there is consensus among the nationalists, the Tories and the vast majority of the Labour party that there should be a delay until this whole thing has been considered holistically and we have achieved a rational outcome to the discussions in the interest of all our constituents, does my hon. Friend not agree that that consensus should be built on rather than being swept aside, which would be the effect of driving the Bill through?

Anne McGuire: I do not accept my right hon. Friend's analysis. He and I go back a long way in terms of dealing with so-called mumbo-jumbo in motions and amendments, and I know that he and I were always of the view that what is meant by an amendment is what is in the amendment. I am trying to point out to him in the gentlest possible way that what is in the amendment might not be what he intends to happen. Perhaps, however, I am doing him a disservice; it might well be what he intends to happen.
	We have made a commitment to maintain the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament at 129. The consequence of the amendments would be to reduce the number of MSPs. That is not mumbo-jumbo, as my right hon. Friend has suggested. It is the reality of what would happen if the amendments went through, because we would need to undertake a reorganisation of the regional boundaries. If we intend to maintain the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament, it would be ludicrous to reduce it by accepting the amendments, only to reinstate that number at some future date.
	I accept that I have perhaps not managed emotionally to engage with some of the arguments that have been made, particularly by my right hon. and hon. Friends. However, may I say to them in all sincerity that they need to consider what is stated in the amendments? Their effect would be to reduce the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament that the Government have made a commitment to maintain at 129.

Jimmy Hood: I have enjoyed our exchanges in this debate. However, it would appear from the Minister's contribution that the lady is not for turning. I am disappointed by that, because I had a feeling earlier that there seemed to be consensus, certainly on her own Benches. She might win the vote if the matter were pressed to a vote in the Lobby, but she has not won the hearts and minds of members of her own party tonight. I had thought that she might say something in her summing-up that took cognisance of some of the points that have been made.
	I do not wish to challenge my hon. Friend the Minister, and I am pleased to have received her congratulations on supporting the Scotland Act 1998—I thought that we had all supported it. I supported the figure of 129 on Second Reading because that was the way matters were moving. However, we are now talking about the electoral system, and about how we can preserve the consensus. Perhaps I have not understood my amendments, as my hon. Friend has suggested, but where does it say that the result of putting off the enactment would be to alter the figure of 129? There has been no mention of that, and it is not my intention. Therefore, I am rather disappointed.
	I was hoping that my hon. Friend would offer the olive branch of offering to consider some of the contributions that have been made, especially from the Opposition Benches. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) has a point. While I am pleased to be corrected on the existence of a second consultation—there was just the one—I am led to understand that the motions were set in train long before we started going out to consult. There were consultations going on about keeping the 129 long before the formal consultations started. I would like those consultations to carry on.
	There is no argument about the 129. I am not arguing against it; nobody is arguing against it. We are arguing about where we go from where we are now. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North said earlier, if we have not got the message over to our Front Benchers in the Chamber tonight, I hope that some further consideration is given to the matter when the Bill goes down the Corridor.

Alex Salmond: Two aspersions have been cast on the hon. Gentleman during the debate—I am sure innocently, of course. It was suggested, or at least implied, that perhaps he seeks to retain the number of MPs from Scottish constituencies at its current level. Then it was suggested by the Minister that his amendment would rule out 129 MSPs. Can the hon. Gentleman say explicitly that neither was his intention in framing the amendment?

Jimmy Hood: Not at all. Not for the first time in my life, I am innocent. I stand wrongly accused, Mr. Cook. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anybody who has followed my contributions on this matter would never conclude that it was ever my intention not to support the cut to 59. That is not what this is about; it is about the good governance of the Scottish Parliament and of electoral systems in the country that we are here representing.
	This is where I take issue with Scottish nationalist Members: they do not have total ownership of representing Scotland and we Labour Members represent the Scottish people in equal share to anybody else who is a Member of Parliament here. How we are represented in Scotland is as much my concern, even though we are down here representing Scotland at Westminster. I happen to have a family in Scotland; I happen to live there; I happen to have roots there.
	It is so important that what happens in Scotland is done in the best interests of the Scottish people, but what I am seeing here tonight is not good governance. The Bill is not about that or about doing good for the people of Scotland. I think it will harm the electoral systems and, through that, the people of Scotland. That is why we are so passionate about these matters.
	The Minister could have her victory in the Lobby, but—let me put it this way—it would not be a total victory. I shall not push my amendment to the vote for one or two reasons. First, I would not wish to embarrass some of my colleagues on the Labour Benches who passionately share my views, but who may be compromised by that. Also, I want to give the Government an opportunity not to trap themselves in the corner in which they have put themselves, but to come out of it.
	I hope that there are some discussions as the Bill travels down the Corridor; if we in the Chamber have closed minds, I hope that consideration is going on elsewhere. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Patrick McLoughlin: No!

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The Committee divided: Ayes 138, Noes 347.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Clauses 1 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1
	 — 
	Substitution of Schedule 1 to the Scotland Act 1998

Brian H Donohoe: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 12, leave out from 'Shetland)' to end of line 14.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 3, line 14, at end insert—
	'(2A)   For each constituency provided for by Article 2 of the Schedule to the Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Order 1995 (SI 1995/1037) there shall be two Scottish constituencies'.'.
	No. 3, in page 3, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
	No. 4, in page 3, line 18, leave out 'eight' and insert 'two'.
	No. 5, in page 3, line 19, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
	No. 6, in page 3, line 22, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
	'(3)   Six members shall be returned for one region and five members shall be returned for the other region.'.
	No. 7, page 4, line 41, at beginning insert—
	'(   )   The Boundary Committee for Scotland shall submit to the Electoral Commission a report with recommendations on the arrangements to be put in place under paragraph 1(2A) above.'.

Brian H Donohoe: As we saw earlier, politics is not a pure science. On the basis of the previous debate, that is perhaps more the case in respect of the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill than other Bills that have been before the House.
	In my estimation, the Scotland Act 1998 got some things wrong, but I believe that the position would worsen if this Bill were passed and that it would compound the problems created by that Act. From talking to hon. Friends and other hon. Members, I have identified the fact that both in my constituency and elsewhere in Scotland there have been real problems with that Act—not least because the existence of the added list Members has created mayhem in the Scottish Parliament and in the constituencies of both MSPs and Members of Parliament. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have examples of that.

David Marshall: I congratulate my hon. Friend on touching on what is a sore point with many of us. In the city of Glasgow, for example, the 10 constituency MSPs can only raise cases relating to their own constituency, yet the seven additional Members can raise cases in all 10 constituencies. Not only that, but they raise reserved matters that are nothing to do with them. It is a prime example of mischief making. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking steps to remedy that.

Brian H Donohoe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he and others have said to me over the period of the Act's existence, there are real problems in respect of added list Members. Members from every party in the House that is represented in Scotland have told me that.

Pete Wishart: But that is not what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting in his amendments. He is suggesting expanding the range of list Members, who will have more say in more people's constituencies if his amendment is accepted.

Brian H Donohoe: As I develop my speech, it will become apparent to the hon. Gentleman that I have addressed that issue. At that point, if he still does not agree with me, he can intervene again.
	I am conscious of the fact that you, Mr. Cook, are a stickler for the rules. I will turn immediately to the amendments themselves. I emphasise that the figures that I have mentioned are based on the current review, which is expected to deliver 59 Members of Parliament. As things stand and as I think every hon. Member knows, that number is now conclusive. We are talking of 59 Members. My proposal is based on that number and not on any other.
	I have been made aware of some technical problems with regard to the amendments but, as I have already emphasised, my figures are based on those recommended by the Electoral Commission. I accept that the amendments may not be technically perfect in their own right, but having checked with the draftsman and others I have concluded that they are competent to be debated and voted on in the Committee. After all, they have been recommended by the Electoral Commission as the basis on which to calculate.

Ian Davidson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if any technical adjustments are required to his proposals, the best way to proceed is not to defeat the amendments but to make technical adjustments in another place?

Brian H Donohoe: That is a possibility. My hon. Friend is right. That is what I will try to convince those on the Front Bench to accept, if that is required.
	A number of hon. Members, not least my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who has just entered the Chamber, are on my side and support the amendments. Some 24 Members the length and breadth of the Committee support the idea that we need to look at the boundaries within the Scottish Parliament as well as within Westminster.

Alex Salmond: If the chairman of Heart of Midlothian is lined up for the amendments, there must be something to be said for them. None the less, how many Members of the Scottish Parliament has the hon. Gentleman consulted, given that it is their electoral system that he is changing, and how many have come out in favour of his proposals?

Brian H Donohoe: That is not my responsibility but the responsibility of others. The consultation was open to MSPs. What is fundamentally important—I am glad the hon. Gentleman intervened—is what my constituents and his think about the proposal. My constituents will be concerned about the matter today, but when the changes come about they will become even more concerned. Of that there is no doubt. I will expand on that issue as we move through the debate.
	What I am trying to say more than anything else is that we should not allow ourselves to sleep walk into things again, as we did in 1998. By virtue of what we have today, I am clearly of the opinion that we should address the issue with far more purpose than we have to date.
	The amendments call for Scottish Parliament and Westminster Parliament constituency boundaries to be coterminous. That is as far as they go. I do not go any further, although I could. I do not discuss the voting systems that we could create. I do not do anything in terms of gender balance. I say nothing of some of the other elements and problems.

Mark Lazarowicz: I accept that the amendment says nothing about the voting system, but does my hon. Friend not accept that, in moving to a system of two-Member constituencies and of hardly any top-up Members, we will inevitably move away from the proportional system that was included in the Scotland Act? Is that not the effect, and indeed the intention, of his amendments?

Brian H Donohoe: I would not expect anything less from the architect of PR north of the border, but I will develop the argument. I have perhaps allowed too many interventions, but I stress that I am not dictating terms. In the previous debate, it was said that my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) was perhaps dictating terms, but I am leaving it open.
	Without coterminous boundaries, we will create complete confusion as well as additional bureaucracy for political parties, the structure of elections and electoral rolls. That will cause mayhem and the measure has not been thought out as it might have been.

Frank Roy: Is my hon. Friend aware that I represent 15 wards at the moment, but that that will rise to 19, whereas the MSP for the same area will still represent 15? In effect, two constituencies with the same name will represent two different places, which is an absurdity.

Brian H Donohoe: That further example reinforces my argument. Difficulties will be created for the party structures, as well as for returning officers. Most importantly, it will create havoc for our electors. That is more important than anything else and needs to be addressed. There is no doubt that that is the major complication of the existing system.

Peter Duncan: Does the hon. Gentleman share my surprise that all this havoc and chaos was predicted in 1998 during the passage of the Act, as can be seen from the debates on Second Reading, Third Reading and Committee? Everyone knew that this would happen if we strayed away from coterminous boundaries. It is the Government who have done the U-turn, in an embarrassed fashion, to create the second pillar to which the Under-Secretary referred in her speech.

Brian H Donohoe: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is right, but I return to the most important plank in my argument—namely, the creation of problems in the minds of the voters whom he, I and other hon. Members represent.
	I have seen the confusion in the minds of the public. Earlier this year, the Secretary of State said that he had gone to a polling station and met an old woman who asked how she should vote. We are moving towards four different forms of election, which is wrong and ludicrous. This measure must be thought about carefully by the Under-Secretary and those responsible.
	It is patently obvious that the existing system is not working, and we need to know the commission's timetable. I am not indicating in the amendments what form of voting there should be, and I leave the options open for further discussion. I have said that I do not want to construct a form of election.
	The report of the Scottish Affairs Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams), contains much that I feel should be adopted as the way forward. The report is worthy of more consideration by the Government and I look forward to a positive response from the Under-Secretary.
	Not everything about the Bill's Second Reading was bad. The best part was when I heard the Secretary of State bring forward the commission to this side of a general election. By doing that, he gives me confidence that sensible changes will be made. We heard about the commission and that it would be implemented shortly, but I have not heard a single thing since that statement. How many people will be on it and whom will they represent? Who will chair the commission? I certainly hope that it will not be the chairman of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. What discussions have taken place with other parties? I have had no indication that there have been such discussions, and that is a fundamental point.

Frank Roy: Does my hon. Friend think that there is a danger that the commission could be filled with professional people such as lawyers, rather than working people?

Brian H Donohoe: I will not rise to the bait, although it would be better if there were no lawyers on the commission; it seems that it will be full of lawyers.

Alex Salmond: These are legitimate questions that the Under-Secretary will be answering shortly. The hon. Gentleman says that he is not prescribing any electoral system, but as I understand the amendments, he wants 118 people elected at constituency level and 11 elected at list level. We can argue the pros and cons of that, but how can he maintain, with this unaccustomed modesty, that he is not prescribing an electoral system in his amendments?

Brian H Donohoe: There are different forms of election within constituencies, as well as potentially different boundaries. I have had discussions with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)—perhaps these were off the record but should now be put on the record—that suggested that some things might be attractive even to the nationalists.

Jimmy Hood: On the question of the make-up of the commission, some have said facetiously that lawyers, people from Edinburgh or others of that ilk might be on it. It would be unusual if that were the case. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is sometimes easier to get the verdict one wants when one picks the jury? It is important that the commission is seen to be independent of Government and of those who appoint it.

Brian H Donohoe: I trust that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has heard my hon. Friend making the very point to which I am seeking an answer. I would rather that the great and the good appointed to the commission are of a mind to take on board the point that he made.

Ian Davidson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Brian H Donohoe: This will be the final time.

Ian Davidson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way in those circumstances.
	On the question of the commission, in which decade does my hon. Friend expect a decision or recommendation from it to be implemented? Does he expect a decision to be implemented in this decade in time for the 2007 election, or in some future decade?

Brian H Donohoe: My hon. Friend has been reading my script. Before I come to that point, however, I should like to finish my point on the commission.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said in the debate of 9 February:
	"Surely there can be unanimity in the parties in Scotland: whatever the perceptions of marginal short-term political advantage or disadvantage, we do not want to legislate to establish an electoral system that we all know will work to the practical, and in some cases serious disadvantage, of our constituents."—[Official Report, 9 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 1182.]
	Of all the statements made during that debate, that is one that hon. Members should bear in mind.
	My final point on the commission, which has already been alluded to in part, is that we need to establish the time scales. The next Scottish Parliament elections will be in 19—or, rather, in 2007; let us not go back, although some of us would perhaps like to go back to 1998. Can the Minister give us some idea today of the time scale for the commission? I should like specific answers to specific questions, and perhaps the Minister will address them when she winds up. The most important question to be answered is whether a decision has been made on whether the relevant Act will be in place—because primary legislation will be required—in time for the next Scottish Parliament elections.
	If we require primary legislation from the commission's eventual conclusions, I am a little concerned about the need for the commission. After all, this place has the responsibility—and should have the responsibility—to take such decisions for itself. Although I am posing questions about the commission, my major question is whether we need to have a commission at all. We could take decisions here that would bring the whole matter to a conclusion, and we could have done that today. If I may be partisan for a minute, my party has a massive majority, and could have chosen, on the basis of the facts before us, to drive through proposals that would lead to a common-sense position: that taken by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and by every single institution in which I have been involved. That is where the nub of today's debate should lie.
	On Second Reading on 9 February, the Secretary of State, on announcing that he would be setting up a commission, said that it would be possible to propose a particular solution but that we would need a consensus. I argue against that. Why do we need a consensus when we have such a majority? After all, we are the elected Members who can take the decision, and we have a majority Government here. We do not need to go colluding with anyone else in Westminster; we could take the decision here today if we could table and accept the right amendment. We could vote on that; that is what democracy is all about, so far as I am concerned.

John Barrett: Would the hon. Gentleman like to remind the Committee on what percentage of the vote that majority was delivered?

Brian H Donohoe: That is the system in operation here, and we should take cognisance of that in this place.

David Hamilton: As someone elected with 53 per cent. of the vote, I have such a majority.
	There are alternative systems, and surely the most important issue being raised today is accountability. That is what is missing from the current proposals. When I go to the electorate, they will know all the problems that I have had and will determine whether or not I am accepted. That is the same for my MSP colleague, who is elected on a first-past-the-post basis. That is the big issue, and it is the same whether the system is alternative vote or first past the post. There are alternative systems available.

Brian H Donohoe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I support him 100 per cent. in what he says.
	As a member of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, I noticed over the years that we seemed to take everything that it said on board as being set in tablets of stone. I do not accept that any longer, because of my working knowledge of the system in operation. I warned about that before, but I was willing to go along with it. Now, however, my clear opinion is that there is absolutely no doubt, on the basis of what my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton) just said, that there must be an attachment to a particular constituency. There must be a clear indication to those who elect us that we are their property. We move away from that when we talk about the situation created by the Scottish Constitutional Convention. There are those here who think that that convention is a sacred cow. I have to say, however, that much that it proposed caused damage, not good, in terms of governance north of the border. We should all be aware of that.
	To sum up, when I constructed my speech I was of the opinion that it was possible that we would get some sort of flexibility from the Front Bench, and I am looking for that tonight. On the basis of what I hear and learn about the commission, I am concerned that when its proposals come before this House, they will require primary legislation. It will be difficult for such primary legislation to be included in a Queen's Speech and debated in this House before the 2007 elections, so I wonder about the time scales. We also need to know whether and when the commission will be reporting. Will that be before the end of this year, or at the beginning of next year?
	In that spirit, I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Peter Duncan: I commend the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) for introducing this group of amendments. They are a valiant attempt to improve the Bill but, in his heart of hearts, he might well think—and perhaps he will not be reticent about saying so—that this Bill is, arguably, incapable of amendment. It is a bad and unnecessary Bill. It is not necessary to introduce this measure at this time. The Scotland Act was passed in 1998 and there is absolutely no requirement to do anything to resolve the problem of coterminous boundaries.

George Foulkes: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am a humble seeker after truth. He has made the self-denying ordinance not to vote on any English legislation. Can he tell me, then, why all his English colleagues trooped through the Lobby a few minutes ago to vote on purely Scottish legislation?

Peter Duncan: The right hon. Gentleman—

Frank Cook: Order. The hon. Gentleman would be best advised not to respond to such a tantalising—[Interruption.] I am protecting the Committee.

Peter Duncan: Thank you, Mr. Cook. Perhaps we can engage in that subject later.
	The fact is that the Bill that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South is attempting to amend is unnecessary. Like me, he will recall the comments of Henry McLeish, who said:
	"we also believe that the Parliament could operate effectively with fewer Members, and that there are good arguments for maintaining the linkage in constituencies."—[Official Report, 12 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 223.]
	Lord Sewel went further when he said:
	"In the White Paper, we explained that we believed that the integrity of the Union would be strengthened by having common constituencies for the Scottish parliament and the UK Parliament, with the exception of Orkney and Shetland."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 July 1998; Vol. 591, c. 1336.]

Mark Lazarowicz: If we trawl through history, we can find a number of changes of position over the years, but how can the hon. Gentleman claim consistency for his party? If he looks at the report of proceedings in the House on 11 November 1998, he will see that, throughout the debate on the Lords amendments, his Front-Bench colleagues took the position that coterminosity was not that important and that it was right to stick at 129 Members.

Peter Duncan: Of course, in the long and involved passage of the Scotland Act 1998, we can find quotations in all directions. I am pointing out the magnitude of the Government's U-turn. It is beyond question that they have gone back on their commitment to implement the Act unamended.

Alex Salmond: For the sake of clarity, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the late Lord Mackay was a valiant defender of the Scottish Parliament's right to set its own number of constituencies?

Peter Duncan: I am happy to confirm that the Conservative party made that argument in both Houses, and we take no lessons in consistency from the hon. Gentleman.
	The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South has waved the white flag on 129. Like me, he opposed the political fix in principle, yet the amendment would allow a stitch-up to let things proceed with some kind of amicability on the Labour Back Benches. Scottish Labour Members have capitulated. The amendment does nothing about the fact that there is a widespread view that there are simply too many politicians in Scotland.

Michael Connarty: I do not agree with that last comment, as surely it is a question of the quality of representation, not the numbers. The hon. Gentleman is skirting around the fact that the amendments deal with a fundamental point with which his party agrees: that there should be a better arrangement for the electorate. As it is clear that the Government want to press ahead with 129, following a consultation, it is best to have something that makes sense to the electorate, and not simply to oppose everything on principle, just to wreck the Government's Bill.

Peter Duncan: I am coming to some constructive points about the amendment.
	I share some of the concerns that were expressed about the commission and its open-ended nature. The Scottish Conservative party has declined the invitation to nominate someone to the commission, on the basis that it is unnecessary at present. The problem that the commission is being set up to solve is that of non-coterminous boundaries, but the fact is that the Bill will create those boundaries. As the right hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said on Second Reading, the commission is being set up to solve a problem that is yet to be created.
	The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) rightly said that I should be more positive about some of the general themes in the amendment, and I propose to do just that. The amendment goes some way towards offering an electoral framework that we would support, but perhaps the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South has shied away at the last minute from some of the more direct first-past-the-post elements that we both instinctively favour.
	First past the post creates better elections and engenders better results. We in the Conservative party believe that some of the stagnation in recent Scottish Parliament elections is due in no small part to the proportional system creating a disenchantment with elections and we strongly favour returning to a system that is more focused on first past the post. We would encourage the Government to consider any such possibility carefully in the months and years ahead.

George Foulkes: I have just realised what the hon. Gentleman said earlier. The Conservative party has declined to nominate someone to the commission, and now he is arguing for first past the post. Surely, he should nominate someone to argue that case within the commission. He is guilty of a total abdication of responsibility—typically Tory.

Peter Duncan: The right hon. Gentleman need not get so excited. Perhaps he did not fully understand me the first time. We take the view that the commission will have its place in time, when the Bill has been enacted, but we have not given up on successfully opposing its passage. If the Bill is not enacted, there is no need for a commission, because we will not have non-coterminous boundaries.

John Robertson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell me how his party in the Scottish Parliament feels about first past the post, or PR for that matter.

Peter Duncan: We are on record as supporting first past the post. We argued for it in proceedings on the Scotland Act 1998 and will continue to do so.

George Foulkes: I really am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. I note from the amendment paper that his party has tabled no amendments whatever. He has made no constructive suggestions and has said that he is not nominating someone to the commission, in the vain hope that the Bill will be defeated. The Government have a huge majority, so that is absolutely stupid. Surely he can now say that the Conservatives will nominate someone to the commission. To do otherwise is outrageous.

Peter Duncan: I do not agree that there is only a vain hope of defeating the Bill. To my recollection, only one Labour Member spoke in favour of the Bill on Second Reading. Every single other Labour Back Bencher was directly critical of it. What will be different is if on Third Reading we can tempt them to follow that through and join us in the Lobby.
	We believe that the decline in turnout in Scottish Parliament elections has a direct correlation with people's concerns about proportional systems. We believe that the amendment could have been more precise in offering first past the post, although the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South has some imaginative ideas for first-past-the-post constituencies.

Teddy Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware that, according to all my inquiries, he has the absolute, full and complete support of all the Conservatives on the Back Benches behind him? Is he further aware that it would be absolute nonsense to table amendments to a Bill that is absolutely unnecessary? Does he agree that the best sense of all is to give the people of Scotland a chance once again to decide whether they want to keep this assembly—or whether they would rather not?

Peter Duncan: I am delighted to have my hon. Friend's company in the Committee tonight. He holds up the esteem of Conservative Back Benchers with aplomb, as usual.
	The imaginative proposal for two small constituencies per Westminster constituency offers interesting possibilities. It would allow for a more local voice in the Scottish Parliament, could create a greater link with councils and councillors and could well resolve some of the difficulties with constituencies overlapping council boundaries. It could help with local public service issues, as small constituencies could reflect distinct interests. In my constituency, Wigtownshire and Stewartry face very different issues, and perhaps the two-constituency idea could form the basis of some agreement.
	Under the amendment, there would be a reduction in the number of list MSPs from 56 to 11. One of the ironies of Scottish Parliament elections is that the Scottish Conservatives, who were among the greatest opponents of the list system, were among its greatest beneficiaries.

David Cairns: A tragedy.

Peter Duncan: Perhaps the Scottish Conservatives winning the first by-election of that Parliament made that tragedy somewhat more legitimate.
	There is considerable resentment among Labour Back Benchers about the role of regional and list MSPs. They were sceptical during the passage of the 1998 Act and I suppose that nothing that has happened in the past five or six years has convinced them that it is other than a bad system, badly implemented, and they feel compromised by it. As I said in an intervention, this issue says more about the power struggle within the Scottish Labour party than about how we govern Scotland. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South suggests a reduction in the number of list MSPs, but that will not eliminate the problems caused by arbitrating in disputes between list MSPs and constituency MSPs; simply having 11, rather than 56, does not eliminate the problem.
	The hon. Gentleman proposes that the number of Scottish Parliament regions should be reduced from eight to two. That has a simplistic attraction in that it is simple to administer, but it would reduce the commonality of interest across those regions. He has not been specific about how the two regions would be created but, for argument's sake, Glasgow in the west of Scotland could be one region, and Edinburgh in the east could be the other. If so, I look forward to hearing whether Edinburgh or Glasgow should get the additional Member and the repercussions in the press that will result from that argument.
	Alternatively, the division could consist of one region comprising the urban central belt and the south of Scotland and another comprising everything north of Stirling. In such a case, regional and local interests could be marginalised. For example, no one from the south of Scotland might be elected, with all the Members coming from the urban central belt.

Ian Davidson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, although many of his arguments against having two top-up constituencies are valid, the rules of the House—given the Bill that was introduced—meant that it was not in order to table an amendment proposing only a single list for the top-up? Indeed, the Bill made it impossible for hon. Members to suggest that there should be no top-up Members whatsoever. The amendments are making by far the best of an extremely bad job.

Peter Duncan: The hon. Gentleman is right. As I said during my comments on the first group of amendments, this Bill is a clever drafting job. A lot of effort went into its drafting to preclude debate any wider than the Government wanted. It is perhaps unfortunate that we have not been able to discuss some of the issues that he and I want to discuss, even if the Government do not.
	The amendments are designed to engage voters with a system that might be more local to their needs and that provides the opportunity of overlaying a first-past-the-post election system. However, it misses the main point by cementing into the Bill the fact that there will be 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament. That is not what the Scotland Act 1998, or the deal that was done with the Scottish public, is all about. The reality is that the Government have gone back on their commitment and I regret that nothing in the amendments gets us close enough to addressing that fundamental problem. The Scottish public believe that there are simply too many politicians and that fact outweighs some of the superficial advantages of the amendments. On that basis, unfortunately, I cannot support them.

Helen Liddell: I have a great deal of sympathy with the sentiments behind the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) because I know that they are driven by his desire for coterminous constituencies. Coterminous constituencies are vital to the way in which we go about our business. The electoral system should be devised not for our comfort and convenience, but for that of our electors.
	A fundamental change took place in May last year in the discussions on the coalition agreement, in that it was decided that there should be proportional representation for local government. I shall not go into the ins and outs of whether I find that attractive, but it does mean that four different systems of election will be available to our electors.
	On polling day last year, a friend—he was not a lawyer but a consultant physician—phoned me as he was about to vote. He asked, "How do I vote Labour twice?" I said, "There isn't an awful lot of point in voting Labour twice because this system is so skewed that it doesn't work properly." The problem that we face is the fundamental flaw in the electoral system that was chosen for the Scottish Parliament. I do not believe for a minute that the Scottish Constitutional Convention envisaged the system operating as it is currently being operated. It did not see it as a life-support system for rejects and retreads who could not get elected first past the post. That is not what proportional representation is supposed to be about.
	Although I said that I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South and other supporters of the amendment, I regret that I cannot support them in the Lobby tonight. They have failed to take into account the important announcement by the Secretary of State about the establishment of a commission. Given the four different systems of election available in Scotland, even a commission that consisted 100 per cent. of Edinburgh lawyers—God forbid—would conclude that change to the nature of the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament has to come about. It goes against reason that we should not try to achieve some rationality in the system of election.
	I am disappointed in the Scottish Conservatives for not seeking to be part of that commission. They appear to want to have their cake and eat it. They say that they want first past the post, yet they—along with parties even more minor than them—are among the biggest beneficiaries of the present system. They are not prepared to consider a more rational view of electoral systems in Scotland because it does not fulfil their own self-interest.

Frank Roy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Tories' refusal to join the commission is the politics of the petted lip? It is a question of, "It's my ball, and nobody else is playing if you don't agree with the rules."

Helen Liddell: My hon. Friend can always think of a good Lanarkshire expression. Certainly, if I were running a ménage, I would not invite the Scottish Conservatives to join it.

Peter Duncan: I may be one of the few hon. Members on this side of the House who knows what the right hon. Lady is talking about. I accept her point about not wanting to miss the bus, but this commission is being set up to solve the problem of non-coterminous boundaries. Until the Bill becomes an Act, we do not have a problem with non-coterminous boundaries. As and when the Bill becomes legislation, we will talk about the commission.

Helen Liddell: One of the key issues that emerged from the vast majority of replies to the consultation on the size of the Scottish Parliament was the broad consensus on the figure of 129. That consensus sprang in some instances from self-interest, but in others from the fact that we have achieved a constitutional change in Scotland, reversed a system that existed for 300 years and introduced a new one, the most remarkable aspect of which is its stability. Well may the only Scottish Tory in this House mock that: the Scottish Conservatives were root and branch against devolution because they saw, during 18 years of Tory rule, the extent to which their lot in Scotland could be imposed on the rest of us, who did not want it.

Peter Duncan: The right hon. Lady talks about introducing stability, but the problems that the Government face stem from the fact that they are already changing the system. Their own Labour Members were with them, so there was a "consensus", as they like to call it, on their side. Now, however, they are moving the goalposts and that is what is causing the problem.

Helen Liddell: The consensus was expressed by the people of Scotland through Civic Scotland and our own political parties—I remind my right hon. and hon. Friends that what we are talking about tonight is Labour party policy—and there was clear evidence of support for having 129 MSPs. Some of my hon. Friends who oppose that may now regret not taking the consultation process more seriously. I repeat that it is significant that we are here tonight debating something that, despite its difficulties, is a comparatively minor part of the overall constitutional settlement. Since 1999, a stable Parliament has been in place.
	Constitutional change has been brought about in a stable way, but there is an inherent anomaly at the root of our electoral systems in Scotland. The problem is that we have taken all the different electoral systems in isolation, failing to take into account their impact on our electors. We now have an opportunity through the proposals before us tonight—particularly the proposals recommended by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to establish a commission—to let common sense reign. Let us sort out the mess that is proportional representation and get a system that is fair, transparent and comprehensible.

John Thurso: The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) is a serious man and he has proposed a serious amendment, which merits sound argument. It is certainly worthy of debate. I should congratulate him in passing because the last time that I saw him outside this place he was awarded the "Keeper of the Quaich" medal for his outstanding service to the whisky industry—a well merited award, if ever there was one.
	The effects of the amendment are principally twofold. The primary effect would be to create coterminous boundaries, which is a good thing. No one can argue against them; they clearly make for a much easier life. However, we should not become over-concerned about what they do. The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) made much of the fact that this is a problem of the Government's own making. The original Bill had the problem in it from day one, because it was structured with regard to the differing boundary commission reviews of the Scottish Parliament and Westminster. That meant that, approximately every eight years and for a period of at least two years between the decision of the two boundary commissions, there would be non-coterminous boundaries. That was always in the Bill, so the problem of non-coterminosity is nothing new.

John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but were not the building blocks of the Bill based around coterminous constituencies? What does he say about the fact that we are dismantling those building blocks and going off at a tangent somewhere else?

John Thurso: I do not believe that we are dismantling the building blocks. Rather, the Bill addresses a provisional position to get from where we are to where we want to be. My point is that if the current Bill were left untouched and the status quo accepted exactly as envisaged under the 1998 Act, because of the different boundary reviews between the two Parliaments, there would be repeated periods of non-coterminosity from time to time.
	I want to leave aside the question of coterminosity and move on to the second effect of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South, which is far more important and deserves to be considered seriously. That is the suggestion that each of the current Westminster seats in Scotland should be divided into two, with the remaining requirement for 11 Members being made up from two regions. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that that drives a coach and horses through proportionality. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]
	I want to make it clear that I have the greatest respect for Labour Members who want a first-past-the-post system and face considerable difficulties in introducing it through this short Bill. Returning to first past the post is obviously what they seek. As I said, I respect that; they have been quite open about it. My objective—I shall expand on it when we debate the commission—is a fair proportional system. My hon. Friends and I have always believed that the single transferable vote system provides the answer.

George Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman and certainly Lord Steel and other Liberals agree with us that the current system for electing the Scottish Parliament is crazy. Was not one of the principal architects of that system Canon Kenyan Wright? Is it not interesting that he has now come out in his true political colours as a liberal, so are the Liberals not to blame for this mess and dog's breakfast?

John Thurso: Much as I respect the right hon. Gentleman, he is quite wrong. The convention produced a number of principles and a practical way of delivering them. Key among those principles was that of proportionality. The House and the Government—of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member at the time—quite properly enacted those principles and the result was the Scotland Act 1998.

Irene Adams: The hon. Gentleman is right that proportionality was one of the key principles of the convention, but one of its other key principles was to have a gender-balanced Parliament. Why did the Liberals not keep their word on that?

John Thurso: I believe that proportionality in the Scottish Parliament is considerably better than it is here, so we are advancing in the right direction.

Alex Salmond: Can we clear up the point about who devised the detail of the electoral system? Was it Canon Kenyan Wright or someone else? Was it the Labour party or another party? Who was it in the convention who came up with the magnificent idea of having two votes, even in a list system?

John Thurso: I am afraid that I am unable to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. We all accepted what the convention put forward when we debated the issues in 1998. The Bill was before the two Houses, but I must confess that I was in the other place at the time and I am not sure what happened at this end of the Corridor. What was accepted then, however, was broadly what the convention had proposed. That was right and proper. A critical element of what was proposed was that proportionality should be a key part of any electoral system. As I have said, my hon. Friends and I happily argue for STV, but at that time we accepted the system that had been recommended by the convention.
	Much has been made of the fact that there are four electoral systems in Scotland. In fact, there are three. These are: the first-past-the-post system for this place; the closed list system for European elections; and the current system for the Scottish Parliament. There may be a fourth system for Scottish local government, and it may be—I hope that it will—STV. However, that is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. We have devolved that power and it is up to that Parliament to take the decision. We have debated devolution many times, but the House must get used to the fact that we have devolved power to the Scottish Parliament. It not for us to argue about STV for local government elections, because the power has been devolved.

Russell Brown: I am listening to what the hon. Gentleman is saying about STV for local government elections. Will he be honest with the Committee and say whether he genuinely believes that STV will also be used for Scottish Parliament elections in future? That would reduce the number of different ways of electing people in Scotland.

John Thurso: I would hope that the input that I and my hon. Friends make to the commission—and the input from MSPs and all other interested parties in Scotland—might result in a decision to recommend to this House that STV is the best system. If this House brought forward legislation based on such a recommendation, we would support it. We must deal with the potential consequence of a possible future decision by the Scottish Parliament.
	In an earlier debate, the Minister said that there are two pillars to the argument about maintaining 129 MSPs. As the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) said, many people want 129 MSPs to be retained in the Scottish Parliament. A variety of reasons can be adduced for that, and self-interest might be one. I believe that the committee system has been one of the successes of the Scottish Parliament, as it has helped to deliver better government for Scotland, and to encourage people to participate in government.
	The maths is as follows: if one subtracts the number of Ministers from the total of 129 MSPs—and it can be argued that there are too many Ministers—and divides the remainder into the number of committees, one discovers that each MSP is already involved in 2.9 committees. Therefore, reducing the number of MSPs will clearly create a fairly impossible work load. There is considerable support—if not overwhelming support—for maintaining 129 MSPs.

Peter Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Lazarowicz: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Thurso: In a moment. The other pillar to the argument is that it clearly must be right to reduce the number of hon. Members in this House who represent Scottish constituencies. Given that we now have a Scottish Parliament, we do not need a level of representation that predates devolution.
	Those are the two principles involved. If we want to enact them reasonably quickly, a holding Bill such as this one is the only way forward. It is obvious that the right way to proceed is to have a commission to deal with the likely consequences of having four voting systems, to replicate the work of the convention, to achieve a consensus and then to make a recommendation to this House in respect both of a future electoral system for the Scottish Parliament and of coterminous constituency boundaries.

Michael Lord: I call Mark Lazarowicz.

Mark Lazarowicz: When the hon. Gentleman—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I may have mistaken the intentions of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). Has he finished his speech, or is he giving way?

John Thurso: I am giving way.

The Second Deputy Chairman: To whom?

John Thurso: I thought that I was giving way to the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan).

The Second Deputy Chairman: I call Mr. Duncan.

Peter Duncan: I am very grateful, Sir Michael. After all that time, I was not sure that the hon. Gentleman would come back to me. He mentioned that each MSP was involved in 2.9 committees. Does he not accept that the simple solution would be to have fewer committees? Is not it the quality of legislation and of government in Scotland that is important, and not the quantity of the legislation that is created?

John Thurso: I do not accept that proposition at all. I certainly do not believe that legislation is the only thing that makes a Parliament good. The effective scrutiny of an Executive's actions are of paramount importance. One of the successes of the Scottish Parliament is that—in some ways, although not all—it is able to hold the Scottish Executive to account far more effectively than this House does for any Government.
	However, I must say that I find the Conservative party's position on these matters almost incomprehensible. Other hon. Members have mentioned the comments made by the late Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I mentioned them on Second Reading, and I shall not repeat them today. However, it is clear that, when the Scotland Bill was being enacted, the Conservative party wanted fewer than 129 MSPs. When it was obvious that 129 would be the number, the Conservatives made absolutely clear their belief that the number chosen at the beginning should not be changed.
	The Conservative party has done a complete volte-face, U-turn or whatever one wants to call it. I can have sympathy for the views of hon. Members of other parties who, even though they disagree with me, have held their views for a long time. I hope that they would accord the same respect—if I may put it like that—to me. However, I find the Conservative party's shenanigans completely inexplicable.
	The amendments would not solve the problem. The Secretary of State has set up a commission, which must gather evidence from all parties. It is ridiculous that the Conservatives are not prepared to take part in it.

Peter Duncan: Yet.

John Thurso: Once again, they have elected to let down their few supporters in Scotland by standing on the sidelines instead of engaging in the game. They really are letting down the electorate, and they should rethink their approach on this matter.

Alex Salmond: I am following what the hon. Gentleman is saying with interest. From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) used the word "yet" when it was stated that the Conservatives did not want to serve on the commission. Are nominations for the commission about to be announced? Is the appointment of the commission being held up until that group decides to catch the bus?

John Thurso: I could not possibly answer for a Tory, but the hon. Gentleman makes the interesting suggestion that the Conservatives, having engaged in fun and games tonight and found a way to oppose the Bill, will do a prompt U-turn yet again and take part in the commission. That is perfectly possible.
	I shall conclude by saying that it is right to have a commission to look at electoral systems. I hope that the Conservatives do perform a U-turn, as everyone should be represented on the commission. The appropriate time to discuss electoral matters will be when the commission makes its recommendations to this House. I hope that that will be sooner, rather than later. It is because of that that Liberal Democrat Members, if pressed, will vote against the amendments.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I call Mark Lazarowicz.

Mark Lazarowicz: Thank you, Sir Michael, and I am sorry that I mistook the courtesy of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) for the conclusion of his remarks.
	When the hon. Gentleman said that the amendment would effectively end the system of proportional representation in the Scottish Parliament, he was greeted by a chorus of some Labour Members saying, "Hear, hear!" There is no doubt that one of the amendment's consequences would be to move away from the proportional basis for election to the Scottish Parliament, and that some hon. Members would welcome that. No amendment that would replace the present system with 118 MSPs chosen by the first-past-the-post method could lead to a system that was anything other than grossly disproportionate. However, one of the amendments being discussed would do just that.
	I remind the Committee why we have proportionality in the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) said, the change in the electoral system for local government means that there is a case for looking at the system of proportional representation used for the Scottish Parliament. However, it is worth remembering why the principle of PR was adopted by all the various parties and interest groups involved in bringing forward the proposals that eventually resulted in the Scotland Act 1998.
	The PR system was not adopted because of the immense power that I wielded in Labour party committee back rooms over a few months some 15 years ago. To say that it was would be to flatter my role in the political process at that time. The Labour party supported the electoral system eventually presented in the Scotland Act because, at party conferences over more than a decade, it had supported the idea of moving towards a proportional system. That was supported, and still is, by the vast majority of trade unions, including Unison, the biggest union in Scotland. It was also supported by a wide range of organisations outside the political process, and it was supported for a number of reasons.
	Some people felt that some proportional system would be fairer than first past the post, which is an argument with which I have some sympathy. One of the arguments put against a Scottish Assembly in the 1970s was that first past the post would lead to domination, based on a small plurality of the vote. If that option had been put forward in the referendum for the Scottish Parliament, it might not have gone through. Others recognised that moving to a PR system would make it harder for the Labour party to win an overall majority in the Scottish Parliament, but would also have the effect of stopping any other party, such as the Scottish nationalists, ending up with an absolute majority on a relatively small percentage of the vote.
	There were many reasons why a number of organisations came together to support PR for the Scottish Parliament. Certainly, the idea that we should now reject the principle of PR, which would be the effect of the amendment, should not be adopted in the absence of broad consensus among the political parties and other organisations in Scotland. Clearly, there is no consensus for moving away from a PR system.

David Hamilton: Not everyone agrees with the first-past-the-post system, but there is not only one proportional representation system. I believe strongly in an alternative vote system, which connects the Member with the electorate. It takes 50 per cent. plus to be elected through that system, which is an extremely good one. I wish my hon. Friend would stop justifying his position on the decision that he took some time ago, which has landed us with the problem that we now face. He can rewrite history as much as he likes, but at the end of the day, that is not what this is about.

Mark Lazarowicz: As we are going into history, which I do not want to overdo for fear of straying from the subject, my hon. Friend will remember that one of the strongest advocates of PR for local government was the National Union of Mineworkers, of which he was an active and leading member for many years. History can take us down a number of paths if we wish to follow them.
	It is worth looking at the history because it reminds us that the experience of the Scottish Parliament has not led to a majority of the public moving away from support for some form of proportionality in it. The support among the public for that is as strong as it was at the referendum in 1997. I must tell some of my hon. Friends that it is not me, others who share my view or the Government who are out of step with Scottish public opinion on this matter, but some of those among my colleagues who argue against the principle of proportionality.

Bill Tynan: Unless I am wrong, my hon. Friend seems to be speaking about political expediency in the introduction of proportional representation in the Scottish Parliament. We have to consider the electorate's participation in PR systems. Does he agree that turning to PR for the European elections has been an absolute disaster for turnout, but that turnout for the last Scottish Parliament election certainly did not suggest that PR was the answer as far as the people of the country are concerned?

Mark Lazarowicz: I am not for one minute suggesting that proportionality is any electoral panacea for Scotland or elsewhere. As with history, statistics can be interpreted in various ways. The drop in turnout between the 1997 and 2001 UK general elections, held under the first-past-the-post system, was even greater than the drop between the Scottish Parliament elections of 1999 and 2003. Different things can be drawn out depending on the argument one wishes to make.
	The essential point, which cannot be contradicted, is that there is not a groundswell of opinion in Scotland for moving away from some form of proportionality. Given the introduction of PR for local government, which has gone through the Scottish Parliament and which will happen, no matter what, we have to consider how the different systems will mesh together. Although I was as happy 14 years ago to support the principle of proportionality as I am today, I actually spoke against the system of two ballot papers. Unfortunately and regrettably, as on other issues, my wise counsel was ignored by those who made the decisions. There we are; that, too, is history.
	There is no broad consensus among political parties and other groups in Scotland, or among the population, if opinion polls are to be believed, for moving away from proportionality. If we are to change the electoral system, one thing we certainly cannot do is impose that change on the Scottish people and the Scottish Parliament from Westminster. For reasons that we might go into later, I do not accept the Scottish National party's position that the right to change the electoral system should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. However, the spirit of any change in the system should certainly go with any broad consensus not just in this Parliament but in the Scottish Parliament and among the Scottish people.

Alex Salmond: My old university friend might go the extra step by accepting the principle that a self-respecting Parliament should be in charge of its own electoral system. If he did that, he might gain a few friends in the House, which he seems sorely to need at present?

Mark Lazarowicz: The hon. Gentleman clearly wants to help me to maintain my friendships on my own Benches. We could debate examples later of how Parliaments and regional assemblies elsewhere in Europe make decisions on changes to their rules. That would be of interest to at least three or four of us.
	The principle that we cannot impose change by edict on the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish political settlement needs to be emphasised from the Labour Benches. Since the Scottish Parliament was established, a new political reality has developed. The Scottish Parliament and the political arena around it are well established and as greatly respected as any other political institution in the UK, including this Parliament. That is the nature of the devolutionary change brought about gradually throughout the UK. Politics are not centred here in Westminster, but are being devolved in a real and direct sense.

Brian H Donohoe: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mark Lazarowicz: If my hon. Friend would not mind, I shall continue for a moment. We must recognise that the view, which he recommends, that we can do what we want because we have a majority and can force change through the Scottish Parliament is fundamentally undemocratic. Of course there are times when Governments have to make difficult decisions that may be against the broad body of public opinion. That should not be done regularly, especially by political parties that wish to have continued electoral support.

Brian H Donohoe: My hon. Friend has argued that the Parliament is doing well and is settled. Has he had any problems with added list Members?

Mark Lazarowicz: No, I have not had any difficulties with additional Members and the activities that some of my hon. Friends have described. However, I accept that some additional Members have acted as he described, and that is one reason why we might seek to change the type of proportionality without abandoning it completely.

John Barrett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that under the amendments the two new regions would have 56 constituencies, with five or six list Members in each? One of the main arguments for a decent proportional system is to avoid the risk of a minority extreme Government ever being elected again. After all, we speak on the anniversary of the day that Margaret Thatcher was elected to Government on 40 per cent. of the vote.

Mark Lazarowicz: I have made a strong enough case for proportionality already without being tempted down that road.
	The establishment of the Scottish Parliament has had one of the consequences that those of us who supported it hoped it would. By establishing a Scottish Parliament, it was hoped that the case for devolution in the UK would be strengthened and the case for separatism would be weakened. That has indeed happened. As support for independence has declined, support for devolution has increased. It is no accident that the Scottish National party is now tearing itself apart over whether to embrace extreme independence or to make use of devolution. The establishment of the Scottish Parliament has sidelined the SNP and its demands for independence.
	The irony is that the political victories that have been won by those of us who support devolution and the Union, and oppose independence, could be put at risk by those who would try to impose a political settlement on the Scottish Parliament—in terms of proportionality and number of Members—that would not be supported by our Labour colleagues or, indeed, by the vast majority of Scottish political organisations or Scottish society more generally. To follow the path suggested by some of my hon. Friends tonight would be to snatch political defeat from the jaws of victory.

Pete Wishart: It will not surprise the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) to learn that I do not find his amendments attractive, for many of the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), in a fine contribution. The amendments would cause as many problems as they seek to solve. My impression was that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South intended that those in first and second places should be elected for the constituencies, but the amendments provide no clear indication as to how he would arrange the election of two Members from one Westminster constituency. I hope that he will tell us when he winds up. Electing those in first and second places might be a good idea compared to what we might actually get.
	On Second Reading, several problems were identified, especially by Labour Members, including those to do with coterminosity, a multiplicity of voting systems and the effectiveness—or otherwise— of list Members. Do the amendments satisfy those three basic concerns? They certainly meet the test of coterminosity, because they would be based on the new Westminster constituencies. Do they meet the test of the multiplicity of voting systems? No, they fail dismally. If we were to accept the amendments, we would have first past the post for Westminster, first and second past the post for Holyrood, an additional Member list system for Holyrood, STV for local government and the closed list for European elections. That is five electoral systems, so the amendments would add to that problem.
	The third test is whether the amendments would address the problems created by the list Members. They would not do so, because—as I pointed out in an intervention—the list Members would be crawling over half of Scotland, making the situation much worse. On the three critical tests identified on Second Reading by Labour Members, the amendments fail two. That is not good enough.

Peter Duncan: Has the hon. Gentleman himself been guilty of crawling over parts of Scotland?

Pete Wishart: As I represent the fourth largest constituency in the UK, I crawl over a fair bit of Scotland. I spend quite a bit of time travelling between Kinloch Rannoch and Brechin, although I prefer to drive because it is a more convenient and suitable way to get around.
	I took seriously the concerns about coterminosity expressed on Second Reading. Labour Members may have a point, although they over-egg it. I have never had a constituent express concern about differing boundaries for Scottish Parliament elections and Westminster elections, but I agree that we are more effective when we work in conjunction with our Scottish parliamentary colleagues. Different boundaries might cause confusion in the electorate about whom to approach for assistance and advice. However, the problems would probably not be as bad as some Labour Members seem to believe—they appear to think that a lack of coterminous constituencies would mean the end of the western world as we know it.
	The more pertinent point is the multiplicity of voting systems, and it must be addressed. If the amendments were accepted, we would have five systems. It is unfortunate that we have not had a real chance to debate the merits of the single transferable vote. We tabled amendments to that effect for this debate, but unfortunately they were not selected—I accept that there were good reasons for that. Surely STV would be the most elegant and sensible solution—[Interruption.] Hon. Members shout, "First past the post", but what has happened in Scotland in the past few weeks? Labour Members' colleagues in Scotland are now enthusiastic champions of proportional representation for local authorities. They are prepared to go on record to champion that cause, and I am sure that Labour Members here would cheer them to the rafters for doing so. The STV system will be used for elections to local authorities in Scotland, and it would make sense to have all domestic Scottish elections settled in the same way.

Jimmy Hood: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the voting record on the Scottish Executive is not the same as the voting record of Labour party branches and constituencies. In fact, if a vote were held among Scottish constituencies, as many as 90 per cent. would support first past the post, although that is not the case on the Scottish Executive.

Pete Wishart: Well, there we have it. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that insight into the Labour party's position. We have seen exposed not so much the divisions between London Labour and Lanarkshire Labour, but the divisions between Labour Members in Westminster. Apparently, there are also divisions between branches and constituencies and the Labour party nationally on this policy. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the differences between parts of Scottish new Labour, because it is very revealing.
	It would be unfortunate to pre-empt and prejudge the outcome of the Secretary of State's commission. We support the commission because we believe that it is a good idea. There is a job for it to do and we shall be judicious workers on it. We have provided our nominee well ahead of the time scale set by the Secretary of State—the Conservatives, unfortunately, could not do that. We at least are fully signed up members of the commission and we want to make it work.
	It is fair and right that the case for STV is made at this stage, if only so that, after studying our debate today, the commission does not conclude that the only solution the Committee could come up with was the half-baked proposal made by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South. As I said earlier, STV is an elegant and sensible solution, given the overwhelming conversion, which I have enjoyed watching, of Scottish new Labour to PR for local government.

Anne Picking: There are some things that I cannot marry up. The leader of the hon. Gentleman's party has said that it would be wrong to impose an electoral system on a Parliament in a democracy, so why on earth would it be justified for us to impose—with the support of his party and mine in the Scottish Parliament—a PR electoral system for local government when people do not want it?

Pete Wishart: What is behind that sentiment is very revealing and shows where the hon. Lady and her colleagues are coming from—they do not like this matter being devolved to the Scottish Parliament. They would prefer that decision to be in their hands and that is the real intention behind her question.
	I listened carefully to the concerns expressed about list Members and about Members elected from the additional Members list. Labour Members have a point about list Members; they have not covered themselves in glory and there are issues in respect of their role. There is real disappointment that the list system has not worked, although as I reminded Labour Members earlier, the House itself decided on that system—perhaps that is a reason for giving the decision to the Scottish Parliament.
	Labour Members also have a point when they refer—as several of them did—to the fact that 70,000 Labour voters in Glasgow could not elect one Member in the list. That is a legitimate point, but I wish that Labour Members would show some democratic consistency in applying that principle. What about the 40,000 SNP voters in Glasgow who secured 4 per cent. of SNP councillors in the city? That is equally wrong. It takes about 12,523 SNP voters to elect one councillor in Glasgow, yet it takes only 1,230 Labour voters to do so.
	I accept that there are problems about all those wasted votes and that Labour Members have principled objections to that and to Labour votes being wasted, but they must concede that a first-past-the-post system for local authority elections will also give rise to problems of democratic deficit.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially to a Welsh MP, but is he not missing the point? The worst thing about the current list system is that a candidate can lose in the constituency but still come in by the back door under the list system.

Pete Wishart: The reason for that is because they do so overwhelmingly well under first past the post—that is why they are not selected. That is a key and legitimate point.

Michael Weir: My hon. Friend might like to point out to Labour Members that Peter Peacock came third in Moray, yet he is a Minister in the Executive for their party.

Pete Wishart: That is a very good point. We do not expect that kind of consistency from Labour Members; they seem to be concerned only with securing a first-past-the-post system.
	Only STV will ensure that every vote counts. It will ensure that tactical voting will not take place on the scale that we experienced during the last Scottish parliamentary elections. If we had STV, there would be no second-vote Green; the Greens and the Trots would have to compete for the first votes like the rest of us. Surely, that makes sense.
	Given that we could solve all the issues on voting systems for domestic Scottish elections, the only real opposition to STV would be if Labour Members were opposed to proportional representation per se. That is closer to the facts, because we have heard from their contributions that they do not want PR for the Scottish Parliament.
	The commission has a big job to do; it will have its work cut out if it is effectively to square all the concerns that we have heard today. However, it must not be used as a fig leaf to cover the real differences that exist in Scottish new Labour. It must not be used to try to heal the wounds that have developed between Lanarkshire Labour and London Labour.

Ian Davidson: Although many views are being expressed from the Labour Benches, the hon. Gentleman makes a mistake if he characterises everyone on them as new Labour.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; he sums up the differences in the Scottish Labour party. Indeed, the differences that have emerged during this debate are truly overwhelming. I do not know where he fits into the spectrum, but he certainly has much to choose from.
	The fault lines between the two groups are clear. If there was a free vote on PR for local government, I think one Labour Member would be in favour—

Chris Bryant: Two.

Pete Wishart: There would be support from their Welsh colleague, but the rest would reject it overwhelmingly.
	Whisky strip stamps are another issue—[Interruption.] Labour Members are asking about Divisions, so I would give them one on whisky strip stamps. That is an interesting and indicative—[Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. May we have fewer interventions from a sedentary position? I can hardly hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying. May I also ask him to address his remarks to the amendments before us?

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to you for your guidance, Sir Michael.
	My point was that if Labour Members had their way up the road they would oppose whisky strip stamps, but in this place not one of them was prepared to support the whisky industry in its hour of need. That was disgraceful.
	We shall support the Bill. We believe that it is right and that we must have 129 Members for the Scottish Parliament. The amendments are not the solution to the problems that we heard about at such length on Second Reading and again today, and if they go to a vote, I urge the Committee to throw them out. We should support the Bill, but throw out the amendments.

Ian Davidson: I want to consider whether the proposals can be improved. They start from the assumption that the system in the Scottish Parliament is the best of all possible worlds and that the current construction—with 129—is not capable of change or enhancement. There are two main reasons why that is not the case.
	First, the existing system is unfair. The situation in Orkney offers an example. The Member for Orkney, who is the Deputy First Minister, was elected with—I believe—3,659 votes. With that figure, he would have won second place in no constituency and would have come only third or fourth in many others. In fact, with 3,659 votes in Strathkelvin and Bearsden, where there were five candidates, he would have come sixth. The absurdity that someone can be elected in one constituency with a vote that would not even have enabled them to come last in another needs to be addressed, so it is reasonable to consider a system that would give us more equally sized constituencies—[Interruption.] I hear a Welsh comrade, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), say that that is the consequence of first past the post, but it is not simply that. The system is being used in constituencies of grossly unequal size and we must address that.

Michael Weir: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how that would change under the proposals we are discussing? I understand that there would be two Members for Orkney and Shetland—a joint constituency, which is not being changed under the current boundary commission proposals for Westminster.

Ian Davidson: Let me come to the answers in a moment, but my understanding of the amendment is that there would be two Members for each Westminster constituency, as proposed under the new system. Orkney and Shetland would each remain a constituency in the Scottish Parliament, with one Member each, but every other constituency would be split in half and their sizes would then be less disproportionate to the size of Orkney and Shetland than at the moment. Orkney would no longer have the gross, disproportionate advantage of being able to elect someone with a vote that would give him or her sixth place, behind the five others, in at least one other constituency. Clearly, that unfairness needs to be addressed, but it was not foreseen when the Scottish convention drew up the current system.

Michael Weir: Would the hon. Gentleman like to address what the situation would be if the Western Isles constituency were split in two, as it also has a very small electorate, while returning two Members?

Ian Davidson: That is a fascinating point, about which I invite the hon. Gentleman to submit an amendment. I have identified a difficulty, and I am happy to support the amendment, which would address it. If the hon. Gentleman has subsequently identified another difficulty, let him submit an amendment to try to deal with it.
	I certainly want to associate myself with the earlier comments about the difficulties caused by list Members who pretend to represent individual constituencies. In the Pollok constituency, which I represent in the House, Johann Lamont was elected by a clear majority at the first Scottish parliamentary elections. She defeated Kenny Gibson of the SNP and Tommy Sheridan of the Scottish Socialist party, both of whom went on to pretend to be the constituency Member for the Pollok area. They advertised, presented themselves and went round to organisations, making it clear that they were the representatives for the Pollok constituency and deliberately trying to mislead the electorate. The SNP's internal election results have removed Kenny Gibson from the scene since then, but Tommy Sheridan still pretends to be a Member representing the Pollok constituency. That causes considerable confusion in the minds of many of the electorate.
	I want to echo the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell). Indeed, Australia's gain is our loss in the circumstances. She graphically pointed out the difficulties of the second vote system, which involves substantial numbers of wasted votes because of the way in which it operates.

Alan Reid: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, under the amendment, there would be far more wasted votes in the second ballot because the number of list MSPs would be reduced? So why does he support the amendment?

Ian Davidson: Let me first outline what the difficulty is before returning to my solution.
	In the second ballot in Glasgow, 77,000 people cast a vote for the Labour party, but they got no one elected. Those 77,000 votes were wasted. However, the SNP and the SSP together polled only 66,000, but they got four people elected. Why can 66,000 votes get four people elected, but 77,000 votes get no one elected? That seems to be patently unfair. Similarly, if the figures for the Liberals, the Greens and the Tories are put together, they polled only 45,000 votes, but got three people elected. So it seems that, with the second vote system, someone can fail to get elected even though he or she get lots of votes, while other people with fewer votes can get elected. Indeed, that applies not only in Glasgow, but in the west of Scotland, Lanarkshire, central Scotland, the Lothians and a number of other areas.

Pete Wishart: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how it is fair that it takes 87,313 votes—48 per cent.—for Labour to get 71 seats on Glasgow city council or 90 per cent. of the seats there, when the SNP gets three seats with 37,570 votes or 21 per cent. of the vote? Explain how that it is fair.

Ian Davidson: Well, we now have someone in the national party of Scotland, as it sees itself, calling for Westminster to take powers away from Edinburgh and to determine how local government elections should be conducted in Scotland. I am prepared to support that suggestion if the hon. Gentleman is willing to table proposals that say that such things should cease to be devolved matters and should be dealt with here. The vast majority of councillors in Scotland, not only from my party but from other parties, would enthusiastically support stripping that power away from the Scottish Parliament.

John Barrett: Does the hon. Gentleman not remember that the reason for the second vote was that the first vote was for a non-proportional, first-past-the-post seat? The second vote was intended to make the entire result more proportional. It was a case not of holding a completely separate election, but of making the entire election more proportional.

Ian Davidson: That was not why the system was set up; it was set up to keep the Liberals on board. It was a sweetie given to the Liberals to keep them happy and to stop them walking out of the convention and threatening to sabotage the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. That is why it was done.

John Robertson: Is it not also a fact that, when those people were standing outside the polling stations, they told the people who were going in, "Yes, you can vote Labour. We don't want your first vote. It's okay to vote Labour, but vote for us in the second vote. Don't worry about that; Labour won't mind because their second vote doesn't count"? Is that what we call democracy?

Ian Davidson: Indeed, that is exactly what was said. Not only were the Liberals saying it, but the Trots, the nationalists and, indeed, the Tories were saying it in Pollok. [Hon. Members: "Tories in Pollok?"] Yes, there are a few Tories in Pollok, and we know where they live. Yes, we have got their names. Everyone was clearly saying that the Labour party's votes in the second ballot would be wasted, so people should vote for the other parties. Of course, many people took that advice, which artificially depressed the Labour party's vote in the second ballot—otherwise it would have been much higher. The 77,000 votes that were cast is a lower figure than the number of Labour votes in the first ballot. It cannot be sensible to have a system with two ballots, when people know that their votes will be wasted if they support Labour in at least five out of Scotland's eight divisions. That is not tenable.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am grateful to a fellow Labour and Co-operative Member for giving way. As I understand it, he is saying that it is wrong for parties to suggest that voters in the second ballot should vote in a way that does not reflect their preferred electoral wishes but that makes the most of the electoral system. My hon. Friend has been calling for some time for the Co-operative party to do that very thing in the list system for the Scottish Parliament. Has he now withdrawn that proposal, which, of course, has regrettably found no support at any official level in the Co-operative party?

Ian Davidson: May I say how glad I am to get that introduction from my colleague? I was identifying the difficulties before moving to the solution, and it seems entirely sensible that we examine it in the light of the two problems that I have identified—the unfair sizes of individual constituencies and the preponderance of wasted votes in the second ballot—whether or not the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) addresses those issues.
	Of course, the amendment clearly addresses both the issues that I have identified. By splitting in half the proposed Westminster constituencies and creating two seats in each, we would bring the seats more in line with Orkney and Shetland, although not sufficiently so in my view. Of course we would also allow a system of gender balance in respect of my own party. That would not involve legislation, but I support that because it would be in line with our view of how any revised system for the Scottish parliamentary elections should be conducted.
	However, let us consider the second system that I suggest. If there is no change in the electoral system along the proposed lines, we must all, especially Labour Members, consider how to react. We have two experiences of every Labour vote in the second ballot being wasted. In those circumstances, the rational response is to consider casting one's vote elsewhere. I know that the Tories, the Liberals, the nationalists, the Greens and the Trots have appealed for those votes at some time. However, I believe that it is far better to cast that vote for a party with which we already have an alliance; it is far better to give it to a nice, kind body such as the Co-operative party, which can be trusted to work more closely with the Labour party than with the Liberals.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), I stand for this place as a joint Labour and Co-operative candidate because, on a first-past-the-post system, it makes no sense for a Labour candidate and a Co-operative candidate to stand against each other. However, under the system that we are considering and that I want to amend, it is irrational for Labour to put up candidates in both categories for the Scottish Parliament elections. In such circumstances, I hope that our arrangement with the Co-operative party would be recast to allow the latter to stand and Labour to stand down in order to create a Co-operative and Labour party alliance.
	I appreciate that I have outlined a new idea, which is therefore considered dangerous. I also know that it was not invented at head office and must be even more suspect. None the less, I hope that Labour Members will consider it on its merits. We cannot continue to ask our people to waste their votes in election after election and subsequently find ourselves forced into an alliance with people with whom we would not choose to share an enclosed space for any length of time, simply because the other alternatives are worse.

Chris Bryant: Would my hon. Friend want to preclude people from standing for constituencies and the list? That would obviate the problem that we in Wales call the Clwyd, West system, whereby one person wins the constituency seat for Labour and all three losers win list seats and end up in the Assembly.

Ian Davidson: I acknowledge that that is a difficulty but I would not legislate against it because I believe that the way in which to address it is to try to reduce the numbers of list members and to make it clear that they have a national rather than a local responsibility. Although I would be prepared to amend the figure of 129 to bring it slightly more into line with the balance of first past the post and proportional representation, we are told that it is a sacred number from which we cannot depart. If that is so, and we have identified 118 first-past-the-post seats, I would choose to elect the remaining 11 representatives on a proportional representation system for the whole of Scotland and ask them to take on a national responsibility and perhaps focus on Committee chairmanships or positions so that they are distinct from the constituency Members, who tend to pick up on local issues and present them in the Parliament.
	It is an unwarranted intrusion into the flexibility and freedom of political parties to tell them that individuals cannot stand for both lists. I appreciate that especially the lesser known parties would want their leaders both to head a list and stand for a specific constituency, knowing that he or she was unlikely to prove successful. I acknowledge the problem but the suggested solution is not appropriate.
	It has been suggested that everyone always accepted the two principles of 59 Members of Parliament and 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament. However, the consensus in the Labour party has always been for the third principle of coterminosity. The majority of Labour Members accept that. The amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South tabled would fulfil the three criteria better than the Government's proposals.
	I hope that, when the Under-Secretary responds, she will tell us more about the commission. I remain anxious about the decade in which the commission will report and in which its reports will be implemented. If we allow ourselves to move beyond 2007, new facts will apply. I presume that that is the intention of those who support delay. After 2007, local authorities would be elected by proportional representation and there would be enormous vested interest in adopting a specific solution wholesale.
	It is more sensible to make decisions quickly, acknowledge our difficulties, judge the success of proportional representation by the turnout for the European elections and conclude that the universal application of first past the post is by far the fairest means of conducting elections in this country.

Alex Salmond: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) tempted me into contributing to the debate. I emphasise to him that I have never argued that voting Labour in the second ballot was a wasted vote. I have argued that voting Labour in the first ballot was a wasted vote and I shall continue to maintain that position.
	The hon. Gentleman said that his proposal about the Co-operative party was a new idea. I congratulate him on re-presenting an idea that I have heard him present many times in the past few years. However, he has a quality that is not given to everyone participating in the debate: consistency. He was the only Labour Member of Parliament who spoke against the current electoral system for the Scottish Parliament when it was debated in Committee on 28 January 1998. When we consider the system and its faults, we should show a little humility and admit that the hon. Gentleman, who opposed it for different reasons—he said that first past the post was best system—was the only Labour Member to identify difficulties in the initial debate. He therefore has the benefit of consistency.
	That does not apply to the Tory Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan). When only one Tory Back Bencher was present in the debate, it was a little like old times. The only difference was that that used to happen in debates on Scottish legislation when the Conservatives were in government, and the people who were not present carried the vote. The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale should have a word with Conservative Members who claim to take such an interest in Scottish affairs and want to vote. The party could at least provide some token representation to show some interest. The hon. Gentleman is more interested in Merseyside than his colleagues are in Scottish affairs.
	I do not mind the hon. Gentleman's teasing the Labour party about U-turns, but no one has performed more U-turns on the matter that we are considering than the Conservative party. In 1997, the Conservative party in the Lords played a key part in arguing that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to maintain its numbers. It said that it would be impossible for Parliament to impose different systems on the Scottish Parliament. Conservative Members have done a U-turn on that.
	Conservative Members are about to perform a U-turn on the commission. I should like an explanation. On several occasions when the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale has been asked about Conservative participation, he has used the word "yet". We are therefore being told from a sedentary position that Conservative Members are about to change their mind. My only concern, as someone who posted my letter, first-class post, to the Secretary of State, is that it is a bit much to have to wait to hear who is on the commission until the Conservative party eventually decides that it will nominate—whenever the hon. Gentleman is told that he can by his party leader. Will the Minister confirm that she is not waiting for the Conservative party, or will she deal with that point later? The Minister indicates that she will deal with the point later. I am glad to hear it. It would be extraordinary if we were waiting for the commission to be established because the Conservative party was playing some game about when it would nominate.
	I have two points on the subject of debate. I am not an expert on the constitutional convention, for obvious reasons.

Jim Sheridan: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, I have no reason to question his integrity or his knowledge of what happened in 1998 in terms of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) being the only Labour Member speaking in the debate. However, will the hon. Gentleman accept that, since 1998, there has been a significant change in personnel on the Labour Benches?

Alex Salmond: I did not say that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok was the only Labour Member who spoke in the debate. I said that he was the only Labour Member who spoke against the electoral system. Five Labour Members spoke in the debate, including the Father of the House, the then hon. Member for Midlothian, whose successor seems to have a different opinion, the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart), who I suspect still has the same opinion, and the then hon. Member for Falkirk, West, who of course is no longer in the Labour party. Only the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok was against the system.
	I accept the point that we have learned from experience. I was merely saying that very few people had the foresight at the time to identify the problems in the system. Where did they arise from? I am not an expert on the constitutional convention, but I suspect that the story runs something like this. The Liberal party on the convention wanted a single transferable vote. Although, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) pointed out, the Labour party had accepted proportional representation, it did not accept the single transferable vote and said that there could be a list system. The Liberals then said that they wanted 145 Members in the Scottish Parliament. The Labour party wanted about 100. The figure of 129 was settled on, as the least possible number to ensure some form of proportionality. So there was a process of horse trading, and perhaps it is hardly surprising that the system that arose from that was by no means perfect.
	I have no idea which evil genius decided to have two ballots, which is unnecessary in an additional Member system. It is perfectly possible to operate an additional Member system with one ballot. Incidentally, it could be done—I would say this to the hon. Member for Midlothian if he were here—with ATV in the first ballot. Some people do it that way. I do not know exactly where the two ballot proposal arose from. We have heard Canon Kenyon Wright blamed. I thought that it was the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith, but he has specifically denied it in this debate and we have to accept his word.
	The key problem with the current system in the Scottish Parliament arises from the second ballot. With great respect to the Labour Members who are concerned about list MSPs crawling all over their constituencies, I was an MSP and had list MSPs crawling over my constituency, but it never did me any harm. I do not reckon that it did the electorate much good, but it was not the most enormous issue. With respect to the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), I do not think that the problem with the two votes is the one that she identified, namely that of people saying that a vote for Labour is a wasted vote. It is perfectly clear from an examination of the statistics on the second vote that a substantial minority, probably the majority of people voting, think that the second vote is a second preference. That applies to every party on the first vote. The fact that some parties reinforce that belief in their campaigning may add to the problem, but it is not the heart of the problem. If someone is given two ballot papers and told that they have two votes, it is a reasonable assumption, even for someone who is quite interested in the political system, that the second vote is not quite the same as the first and might be for a second preference. In my experience, most people think that the second vote is for a second preference. That is the heart of the problem, because it is a real corruption of the political system and must be dealt with, whatever else happens in the commission.
	I am not an expert on the workings of the constitutional convention. To be able to plead not guilty to that is something of an asset, but I know a bit about the way in which the referendum campaign was conducted in Scotland. I have mentioned before that the Scottish news archive shows that the late Donald Dewar had 183 mentions during the election campaign. I had 120. The right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts had four. The right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) had one. The Minister, who was a Back Bencher at the time, had five, and the current Secretary of State for Scotland had seven. Most of them may say that they were Ministers in other Departments, but the right hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) was a Minister in the Scottish Office, and he had 15 speeches and contributions recorded in the referendum campaign. Eleven were references to his previous hostility to devolution; only one was about involvement in the campaign itself. It was launching referendum ice cream, sold by Ricardo Varani, the owner of the Forum café in Kilmarnock. "Very refreshing" was the then hon. Gentleman's comment. He was obviously crawling all over that constituency and sampling the ice cream.
	I do know something about the referendum campaign, and the point was that it was not the specifics of the electoral system—and not even the 129 MSPs—but the idea of proportionality that was very much part of the campaign. Wanting to change the system is perfectly legitimate, given the problems that arise in that respect, but those who want a return to first past the post should remember that, although it was not a dominant or overwhelming part of the campaign, a significant argument in the campaign was that the Scottish Parliament would represent all of Scotland and be elected by a form of proportional representation. With great respect to the right hon. Member for Cunninghame, North and the other Cunninghame Member, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), there is a strong suspicion—without going into the detail of the electoral system that he would like to arrive at—that whatever else may be said about it, it is not a proportional system. Therefore, I suspect that he is cutting across one of the key arguments that were made when we jointly sought the consent of the people back in 1997.

Anne Picking: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was about to finish his speech, so I was waiting for an opportunity to ask the same question as I asked a colleague of his. The hon. Gentleman maintained earlier that we should have no right to inflict or impose a voting system on an established democracy. The same established democracy wants to do that by introducing PR in local government. How does he marry the two arguments?

Alex Salmond: The hon. Lady is correct. It is not a question of inflicting a system. A legislative Parliament should have the right to determine its own electoral system. Electoral systems can be determined only by legislation and therefore only where there is legislation. I am not sure whether the hon. Lady was arguing this, but conceivably under her argument there could be a different electoral system for each local authority in Scotland, which would not be a great idea. If we are concerned about four or five electoral systems, being concerned about 25 might seem a bit much.
	The principle of consent comes through the political forces in the Scottish Parliament. I have been shocked to discover in this debate that it is estimated that only 10 per cent. of Scottish Labour party members support the electoral system for local government that the First Minister announced only a few weeks ago as a breath of fresh air and a revolution in Scottish democracy to which his party was fully signed up. I suspect that he has as much influence on these matters as he did with his call to vote against whisky strip stamps, if I can mention that issue again. The fact that the First Minister of Scotland does not represent what some hon. Members understand to be Labour party opinion is, with great respect, a matter for the Labour party and the First Minister, not for the rest of us. What I can say is that there are enthusiastic supporters in local government—certainly in my party and, I think, in others—of a form of proportionality, but Parliament takes the decision. I am sure that the hon. Lady's colleagues in the Scottish Parliament will take a decision for the best of motives on what they believe in, not for any other base objective.
	The mechanics of the voting system in Scotland have certain flaws, and nobody who has seen that system in operation, or who has experienced standing for election under it, could deny it. The system is capable of change; it should be changed by the Scottish Parliament, and at the very least I hope the Minister can go a bit further than her disappointing allusion. Previous Ministers in her position, while reserving within their opinion the right to legislate, have always conceded that such legislation primarily affects the Scottish Parliament and its view in the matter certainly should be taken into account. As Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish said in 1997, it would be inconceivable for someone else to impose on the Scottish Parliament an electoral system that it did not want.

Jim Sheridan: rose—

Alex Salmond: I shall give way one last time, for old times' sake.

Jim Sheridan: When the hon. Gentleman speaks about two votes and one being wasted, I work on the assumption that at the next general election he will inform his constituents in Banff and Buchan that if they vote for him to come to Westminster that will also be a second vote for him to go to the Scottish Parliament as well. One way or another, one vote will be wasted.

Alex Salmond: I am fortunate in that, as yet, my constituents in Banff and Buchan have reckoned it reasonably worth while to elect me to whichever Parliament I have stood for. With great respect, I have more confidence in the judgment of my electorate than I would if they were composed only of the hon. Gentleman. Let us leave that matter in the hands of the people of Banff and Buchan, and I will be delighted to accept their verdict.
	On contribution rates—I shall not talk about my own, of course, as modesty forbids—those of my hon. Friends seem to be higher than those of virtually every Labour Member in the Chamber. That is the case not only for contributions made from the Floor—

Sylvia Heal: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying very wide of the amendment.

Alex Salmond: I accept your strictures, Mrs. Heal. I think that Labour Members know what I was about to say, so let us leave it there and get back to the heart of the issue.
	I believe that the Scottish Parliament—any self-respecting Parliament—should determine its own voting system. The events when this Parliament determined the voting system and legislated on it on 28 January 1998 provide no basis of confidence for believing that it should have another try. It botched up the first go and the Scottish Parliament should be the place where these things are done. I hope that the Minister is at least able to say more about how she shall consider the views of that Parliament on the electoral system. I hope also that she will confirm that she is not prepared to wait until the Conservative party is ready to nominate at some point in the future before getting the commission up and running.
	My last point to the Minister is a serious one, and I hope it is shared widely. Given the problems that have been identified in the voting system for the Scots Parliament from a variety of points of view—for problems there are, without question—can she say whether a new and better proportional voting system will be up and running in time for the next Scottish elections?

John Robertson: I look at the time and see that I have plenty of it, but I do not intend to take up too much.
	In relation to his comments about 1997 and 1998, I say to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I wonder how many of my colleagues would now not intervene to try to prevent what was proposed at the time. I agree, as he did with me on Second Reading, with his analysis on ballot papers. One ballot paper is sufficient for anybody. The voting system we might not agree on, but never mind.
	This has been an excellent debate and, as usual, we have had a lot of fun. Unfortunately, the people we are here to talk about and represent probably do not care a jot about what we are discussing and what will happen at the end of it. They might eventually care, but at this moment they do not. Something that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said of the commission fully fits practically everything that we are saying today. He said:
	"To me, the commission sounds like a classic Sir Humphrey mechanism. One can imagine the discussion that took place: 'We are creating a shambles—what are we going to do? We'll set up a commission. When will the commission report? After the shambles has been created."—[Official Report, 9 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 1182.]
	That sums up exactly what we are talking about in relation to the system that we have in Scotland.
	The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) asked why we need to open up the Act. I have great sympathy with that question and we have been known to agree in the matter. This comes down to whether we are getting value for money. I am happy to accept 129 MSPs, and I am sure that the people of Scotland would be happy to accept that number if they felt that they were getting value for money. Sadly, I do not think that they are.
	That came out in particular in the Scottish Affairs Committee when we took evidence on the subject, as neither the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities nor representatives of the Scottish Executive—I know that the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) will agree— had anything good to say about the list system. The jokes and the laughter about people crawling over constituencies are only too true.
	Other than the annoyance caused to MPs and MSPs elected under first past the post, there is the cost to the nation. The cost, in Scotland in particular, is vast. Questions are asked in duplicate, triplicate and goodness knows what "iplicate" when we get to about 16 questions, which is a waste of time and money. It has to be addressed.

Jim Sheridan: On wasting money, my hon. Friend will be aware that that happens not only in the Scottish Parliament, but at Westminster, where we have MPs asking duplicate questions when the answers are available from the ministerial website. Those MPs refuse to get the information in that way, so they waste Parliament's time by asking the questions and using them in a league table.

John Robertson: My hon. Friend is right. If we are to try to get value for money for any Parliament, not just the Scottish Parliament, we must look seriously at the asking of such questions. Nationalist Members may get involved with league tables, but I have to say that certain Conservatives have to take a really good look at themselves and the number of questions they ask. On opening up Hansard, we can find 20 pages filled by questions from one Member. That is not value for money for the constituents he represents, and it is not value for money for the House. It certainly is not value for money for the taxpayer.
	Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 would introduce two Members per constituency, but at no time did anyone in whose name those amendments stand talk about the electoral system as such. Two per constituency would keep coterminosity, which, in most cases, has been agreed to be desirable. If not desirable, it is a necessity. Election might be by first past the post, STV or AV—I lean towards first past the post, but then again I would—but that is not to say that there could not be election by another system.
	The fact of the matter is that that is not what the amendment is about. It is about keeping coterminosity and keeping a relationship between Westminster and the Parliament in Scotland. Of course, it would be politically advantageous for the nationalist party to get rid of that. The last thing that it wants is Westminster and Holyrood working together in partnership and doing what is right for the people. I do not think that the Scottish nationalists care two hoots about the people, unless they happen to vote for them. Thank goodness for the rest of us, who do not vote for them in great numbers.

Peter Duncan: The hon. Gentleman will have played a key part in the referendum campaign in Glasgow in 1997. Can he conceive of the reaction if the Labour party had proposed to the Scottish public a system whereby different constituencies would have been in place for Westminster and the Scottish Parliament only six years on?

John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman asks a good question. Sadly, at that time it would not have made any difference, because the debate was about not what was going to happen in relation to the Parliament, but for the hearts and minds of the people and voting for a Scottish Parliament. We all worked hard for that.
	I was fortunate enough to be Donald Dewar's election agent, as well as his campaign manager in the constituency because he was out and about in the country. We worked very hard and got a very good turnout in my constituency. We also got a good vote for the Parliament. Lots of parties were involved and that was one of the few times that I have ever congratulated the SNP in my constituency, where it came out, helped and worked hard for a yes, yes vote. The unfortunate thing was that it could not do anything as a party in the Glasgow area to get a yes-yes vote. It was left to the Labour party to do all the work. That was sad, but the good news was that it came out and helped and we got the vote.
	What would my position have been if I had known then how it would turn out? I must speak for myself in relation to that. Not too many people come to talk to me about this subject. They might say that the Scottish Parliament is too expensive, or that there are too many MSPs, but it is not generally talked about. People are more concerned about the delivery of services by the Parliament. The question is: is that good? While there are good points, there are also negatives, and the people will decide, but that is not what we are talking about today. We are talking about the amendments.
	Many hon. Friends mentioned local government, which is fair. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said that there was no legislation on local government in that respect. Well, there is, but it does not come from the Scottish Parliament. Out of 28 councils in Scotland, 24 would like it to stay that way. They are not happy at being told that they are moving to an STV system. They are not happy about a wee cosy get-together in Edinburgh where deals are done long before anything comes out and appear as a fait accompli to the membership. Because of the numbers game at Holyrood, whereby my party has no overall majority, the tip of the tail must be listened to, because they are doing the wagging.

Anne Picking: Does my hon. Friend agree that the coalition is too high a price in giving PR to local government?

John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Again, I can speak only for myself—I would not dream of speaking for anyone in my party or anyone else on this matter—but I must agree. I would never have gone into any kind of coalition with any party under any circumstances. I would much prefer to have been a minority Government, and I believe that we would have got better government in Scotland if we had stuck to that. Hindsight is a great thing.

Alex Salmond: For clarification—I know that this is what the hon. Gentleman is saying—will he confirm that his problems with this matter are related entirely to decision making in his party? It is no one else's responsibility. If the Labour party want to govern as a minority in Scotland, it has the ability to do it. That was even done in Wales for a time. Those are choices made by his party colleagues and there is no point in criticising the rest of us for something inherent in his party.

John Robertson: I agree to a certain extent, but the fact is that once we enter a coalition, it is difficult to get out of it. We solidify opposition against us and, in this case, we have the SNP, the Greens, the Scottish Socialist party and Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all managing to vote together—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the scope of the amendment under discussion.

John Robertson: I apologise. The hon. Gentleman goaded me into it, and it is not my fault. A big boy did it and ran away. I think that I have made my point.
	Amendments Nos. 4 to 6 do away with the connection to eight European constituencies, which would seem sensible, as we are doing away with the eight European constituencies. As of June this year, we will have a list-type system under which the top people will be voted in. They will not have constituencies to represent. Why would we want to set up a system in the Scottish Parliament that mirrors a system that no longer exists? Nobody wants to answer that question, which seems fair enough.
	If we do not want eight European regional lists—let us say for the sake of argument that we want to get rid of them—with what will we replace them? Were we to change to the system that my hon. Friend proposes, we could still have a list system of five or six to top up, depending on whether we want to make one seat of the Western Isles. I identified that kind of problem in my submission. Be that as it may, five or six MSPs crawling over the whole of Scotland has a certain appeal to me, as it will keep them busy and well away from me and let me get on with the work that I think that I do very well for my constituents—[Hon. Members: "Hear, Hear."] I thank hon. Members. I do not know to whom Hansard will attribute that intervention—[Hon. Members: "Everyone."] That will do for me.
	Amendment No. 7 asks for recommendations on which Parliament can decide. The House must make the laws and decisions. We cannot allow a commission or someone else to make the decisions for us. This is our job. In effect, it is what we get paid the big bucks for. Those of us who want to shirk the responsibility should go somewhere else. We must take on the responsibility and, to that extent, we should make the decision. I ask my hon. Friend to consider that in relation to the commission. I would like the commission to make recommendations—in the plural—not one recommendation that suits everybody. I want recommendations so that we can come to the House and have a serious debate, and nothing less.

Jim Sheridan: On recommendations, my hon. Friend will be aware that hundreds of our colleagues are in their offices watching this debate and millions throughout the rest of the UK are listening to it. In the event that this proposal is withdrawn or voted down, what system would he recommend to those in the rest of the UK, particularly in England, when devolved government is rolled out?

John Robertson: I know what my hon. Friend is trying to say, but I will leave that to the English regions. It is not for me to tell them that the system that we have got is crazy. That will be for them, and I hope that they will find that out before they try it and that at least they will listen to us.
	I have spoken for a little longer than I anticipated. The point is that this is the House of government—not just the Front Bench but the Back Benches—and we have the right to our say. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said that a mistake was made in the laws back in 1997 and 1998. He is right; I think that there were a great many mistakes. The reason for the House, I thought, was to make laws and amend Bills. Why do we do that? We do it to make those laws better. Is that not what we are here to do? We are here to make the law better for the people of this country. How do we do that without people telling their representatives what they think? I make representations to my party and I stand on the Floor of the House and say what I think is right. The Opposition say what they think is right and we end up with a Bill that is fit for the people of the country. I see nothing wrong with that: it is democracy. What I do know is that whatever we have today, at some stage we shall have to revisit it. That is what government is all about.

Anne McGuire: I thank Members on both sides of the Committee for the way in which the debate has been conducted. As one of my colleagues said—I cannot remember who it was—it has been goodnatured and wide ranging. Amendment No. 1 has prompted discussion of many issues, but I want to deal with all the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) before giving him—I hope—enough time to consider a little proposal that I shall make after that.
	I thank my hon. Friend for recognising that his amendments involve technical difficulties. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), however, technical difficulties can be ironed out, and even if they did not exist in this case we would not be minded to accept the amendments. Let me deal first with some of the questions he raised in relation to the commission, the timetabled remit and the membership. I hope that he will take some comfort from what the Secretary of State has proposed, and that what I say will address questions raised by other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), about the way in which the commission will operate.
	On Second Reading, the Secretary of State made clear that the commission would be independent, transparent and consultative. Let me respond to concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) by reminding him that, according to the Secretary of State, the chair of the commission should be a senior politician—not serving—an academic, a business leader or another prominent individual in Scotland. The key qualifications will be transparent independence and a manifest competence in dealing with a complex set of issues. It is clear from this evening's debate that the issues are complex. The chair should be capable of leading an inquiry that will require substantial public consultation.

Jimmy Hood: How will it be possible to select an independent chair who is political but not party political, and who will do the selecting?

Anne McGuire: It has been made clear that the senior politician—if a politician is selected—will not be a serving politician. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the process of appointing the chair and members will involve consultation with the commissioner for public appointments.
	I cannot emphasise too much—various Labour Members in particular have raised this issue—that the commission will make recommendations to the Secretary of State and the First Minister, after which the Secretary of State will decide on the Government's response. He will of course take account of the Executive's view, but, as the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, ultimately it will be for the House to decide. An independent commission will not be making decisions for the House. We have the legislative responsibility, and we will continue to exercise it. As for the time scale, the inquiry will start as soon as possible and will be expected to finish within 18 months to two years. The process has already begun.

Ian Davidson: It is not clear to me whether the recommendations will consist of alternatives, or of a series pointing in the same direction.

Anne McGuire: What I am not prepared to do, and what we were not prepared to do on Second Reading, is anticipate exactly what the commission will come up with. If we establish an independent commission with a remit that, in my view, is quite broad but at the same time very focused—if that does not sound like a contradiction in terms—we must allow it to make the recommendations that it sees fit to make. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State assured the House on Second Reading, however, they will be recommendations, not proposals made on a "take it or leave it" basis. Ultimately, it will be for the House of Commons and Parliament in general to decide whether to enact whatever emerges from the recommendations.

Pete Wishart: rose—

Anne McGuire: There is another amendment that the Liberal Democrats would like to be dealt with, but I will give way.

Pete Wishart: I shall be very brief. The Secretary of State said that the commission would report to him and to the First Minister. The Minister has just said that its recommendations will then come to the House of Commons. Will they also go to the Scottish Parliament, which is the subject of these changes, for its approval and consent?

Anne McGuire: The hon. Gentleman is again trying to put words into my mouth. What I said was that the commission will report to the Secretary of State and to the First Minister, and that the Secretary of State will then consider the recommendations—I have now said that three times. The Secretary of State will then decide on the Government's response, taking into account the Executive's view. If there is a need for any legislation, it will be the responsibility of this House, but that brings me—

Alex Salmond: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Anne McGuire: Not at the moment because I want to deal with the issue of the commission and its membership.
	We were extremely disappointed at the actions of the Leader of the Opposition—I cannot quite remember his constituency. [Hon. Members: "Folkestone and Hythe."] Right. In his letter, he states that he would not wish to participate in the establishment of the commission and that its establishment was "premature". That was reiterated by the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan). I would have some, not sympathy but understanding for that position, were it not for the fact that, within 96 hours of the boundary commission report in respect of the new Dumfries and Galloway seat, the hon. Gentleman was acclaimed as a prospective parliamentary candidate for a seat that, according to parliamentary procedure, did not exist—we had not yet laid the order for the new boundaries for the Westminster Parliament. If the Conservatives are going to start to stand on principle, as they see it, they need to think through the logic of their argument. I suggest that logic and principle do not sit easily with the Conservatives.

Peter Duncan: Will the Minister give way?

Anne McGuire: As I have challenged the hon. Gentleman, I am delighted to give way.

Peter Duncan: The Minister, without getting too hot under the collar, has to answer the simple question: if the commission is being set up to address primarily the issue of non-coterminous boundaries, why is it necessary to set it up now, prior to the Bill being passed by both Houses of Parliament?

Anne McGuire: We can find out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but I will come to the specific point that the hon. Gentleman has raised and deal with the commission's remit, which has exercised hon. Members over the past couple of hours.

Frank Roy: Is it not a contradiction for a Member representing a constituency to call themselves a prospective parliamentary candidate before the legislation is passed here, yet speak differently in this Chamber?

Anne McGuire: That is the Conservatives for you.
	The Government have to oppose the amendments. Our commitment since the announcement to the House on 18 December 2002 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), then Secretary of State, on the future size of the Scottish Parliament has solely been to retain the current number of MSPs and the boundary structure of the Scottish Parliament.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Anne McGuire: I would like to make a little progress because we are running up against a timetable for Third Reading.

Alex Salmond: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Anne McGuire: All right.

Alex Salmond: I make two very quick points. First, a few seconds ago, the hon. Lady said the report would come back to the Secretary of State, who would take into account the opinion of the First Minister and the Executive. Did she mean the Scottish Parliament, or the Executive? Secondly, on something that is of interest across the Committee, is it the Government's intention that, if changes to the Scottish Parliament system are recommended, they will be in place in time for the next Scottish Parliament elections?

Anne McGuire: I said what I said and I will say it again; we have made no secret of this. The commission will make recommendations to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the First Minister. The Secretary of State will then decide the Government's response, taking into account the Executive's view. That is the constitutional settlement, but I reassure the hon. Gentleman, before he gets in a twist, that the reality is that, of course, the commission will look to engage with Scottish politics and civic society. I would be astonished if MSPs—either individually or in groups—did not present evidence to the commission, which will take evidence from various people. This is becoming a bit tedious, but I repeat that the commission is expected to complete its work within 18 months to two years.

Jimmy Hood: In response to the Scottish Affairs Committee report, the Government said that they wanted the commission to report back in time for 2007, but my hon. Friend has said that the commission may take 18 months to two years. It seems that there may be some flexibility and the commission may run over. Will she reassure the Committee that the commission's timetable will allow it to do its work and report back in time for the 2007 election?

Anne McGuire: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he wanted the commission to start its work as quickly as possible and indicated that the anticipated time scale would be between 18 months and two years. I do not want to elaborate further on that.
	I assure hon. Members that the fact that the Conservatives have refused to participate in the establishment of the commission will not mean that the commission's work and deliberations will be delayed. If we had to wait for the Conservative party to make up its mind on what it wants to do on devolution, we would be here until kingdom come.
	The amendments, even if redrafted to achieve the desired outcome of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South, would create a radically different electoral system and would significantly reduce the proportionality in elections to the Scottish Parliament. I am not aware of any consensus or general support for the model that he and other hon. Friends propose.
	Even if such a new electoral system for the Scottish Parliament were a valid and ultimately popular option, it is entirely premature for this proposed solution to perceived problems to be accepted. It was quite clear on Second Reading, and from the broader debate outside this House, that there is at present no consensus either between hon. Members or within civic Scotland on whether changing the electoral system to the Scottish Parliament is appropriate and, if so, what alternative arrangements should be introduced. We have heard a variety of options this evening.
	We are of course not blind to the concerns raised by a variety of hon. Members, from the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts, through to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). We made it clear on Second Reading that we were aware of the difficulties that might follow from the operation of different boundaries for Westminster and Holyrood constituencies as a result of the passage of the Bill and from a reduction in the number of Scottish MPs. Indeed, that was why we welcomed the recent report by the Scottish Affairs Committee on the possible impact of non-coterminous boundaries on voters, party organisations, electoral administrators and others.
	In response to the Select Committee report, the Scotland Office said:
	"This will be an issue for the independent commission on boundary differences and voting systems to consider. The commission will examine inter alia the consequences of having different boundaries between Westminster and the Scottish Parliament constituencies for voter participation and representation of constituents by different tiers of elected members."
	It is clear that that is part of the remit.
	The Scottish Affairs Committee also commented on difficulties in relations between elected Members, the electorate and other bodies following the overlapping responsibilities of constituency and list Members of the Scottish Parliament. There is also the imminent prospect of four different voting systems operating in future Scottish elections—an issue alluded to by many hon. Members. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, after consulting the First Minister, announced that the commission would look at the consequences of different constituencies for Westminster and Holyrood elections, and that the Commission should be set up now and not left until after the Scottish Parliament elections in 2007 as previously planned.
	I am pleased to report that work on achieving that is well advanced, in spite of the reluctance of the Conservative and Unionist party to participate. We have now received suggestions from political parties for members of the commission, and we are actively involved in the process of selecting the chairman, in consultation with the First Minister. We hope to announce the name of the chairman shortly.
	As I have already said, the commission will be independent, and will consider the case for change and make recommendations. It will be the commission's task to look at all the matters that might give rise to the difficulties that hon. Members have identified. As we announced on Second Reading, the commission will examine the consequences of four different voting systems in Scotland and of different boundaries at Westminster and Holyrood. It will consider the implications for voter participation, the relationship between public bodies and authorities in Scotland and MPs and MSPs, and the representation of constituents by different tiers of elected members.
	The commission will also be asked to make representations on whether the consequences of such matters require action to be taken on arrangements among elected representatives to ensure that constituents and organisations receive the best possible service. That links with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland, who said that he wanted the freedom and liberty to do what he does best: to represent a constituency in his own area. The pattern of electoral boundaries in Scotland will also be part of the commission's remit, as will the relationship with other public bodies and authorities in Scotland and the method of voting in the Scottish parliamentary elections.
	With all respect to hon. Members who have tabled amendments, I suggest that it is not now this House to which we should be directing our proposals and comments in the first instance, but the new commission on boundary differences and voting systems when it is established. It is precisely the issues that hon. Members have raised today that the commission will want to consider and weigh against alternative representations and options.
	Devolution was achieved because of a remarkable degree of consensus across Scotland. As we have previously argued, there must be a degree of consensus throughout Scotland before any further changes to the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament are introduced. May I say, with great respect to colleagues, that the way in which the Scottish Parliament is constituted is not just a matter of concern for hon. Members, or even for political parties in Scotland. The electorate and civic society in Scotland, too, are entitled to have their say. The commission will be expected to carry out its remit through a wide-ranging consultation designed to achieve general support for any change. Having thus considered the various views and options, including those of hon. Members, it should reach its conclusions and make recommendations. Then, and only then, can we consider how best to proceed.
	For those reasons, we cannot accept the amendments. I hope, however, that my response has given my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South enough confidence that the independent commission, in terms of both its remit and its timetable, will meet some of the concerns that he and other colleagues have raised. Having said that, I congratulate hon. Members on their contributions and on the thought that they have put into their proposals. I know that some concerns are deeply felt, and cut across party lines. Hon. Members have clearly set out an alternative view for elections to the Scottish Parliament, which has taken the debate forward and will be of immediate assistance to the commission when it begins its deliberations.
	In the light of what I have said, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South will feel able to withdraw his amendment, and that the consequential amendments will not be pressed to a Division. We recognise the concerns that hon. Members have raised today. The independent commission, as some hon. Members have clearly identified, will give us the opportunity to discuss those concerns, maximise the consensus in Scotland and ensure that the Scottish Parliament, which has been built on consensus, will go forward on the basis of consensus. I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his amendment.

Brian H Donohoe: It has become obvious that there is a widely held view that we should maintain the 129. All parties have agreed that that is still in the best interests of the best performance of the Scottish Parliament. The only exception to that consensus is the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan).
	I would like to go into detail on the interesting contributions that we have heard, but that would be inappropriate in view of the time.
	The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale surprised me when he said that his party had turned down the chance to make a contribution to deciding who was on the commission. That will not help us to make progress at the rate that I believe is required to allow us to solve some of the problems that have emerged not just tonight but over the whole period of discussion on the Bill.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) powerfully emphasised my point that we tend to forget that the most important people in all this are our constituents. We clearly have not taken full account of how important it is to have them on our side. She also mentioned the four different systems, which have engendered a debate that is fundamental to the need for change and for the commission to work in a timely way towards a single system.

Ian Davidson: As having four systems has been identified as a difficulty, and as we currently have only three systems, would it not be sensible for the Scottish Parliament to refrain from changing the system of election for Scottish local government until after the commission has reported?

Brian H Donohoe: There is a point there, but we have no control over what the Scottish Parliament does.
	I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) for his fulsome praise at my being appointed a keeper of the quaich. As a master of the quaich, with the long service that he has, he understands what an honour that is. A great deal of work is undertaken not only by myself but by others in the all-party group on Scotch whisky, and I am glad that that has been recognised.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) suggested that the list system was flawed, and even he wanted it changed. Coming from the architect of proportional representation on these Benches, that is quite something, and it was very well received.
	The hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) said that he, too, supported 129. He asked specifically how I would have the two Members elected. I said at the outset that I did not intend to close my mind to the different options available. I said that my first preference was for one male, one female—perhaps with a blue paper and a pink paper—which reflects the fact that the Labour party is among the few with anything close to a gender balance in the current Scottish Parliament, and there is a lot to be said for that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) mentioned constituencies being divided into two. The possibility of the person who comes second being elected was also suggested, but that is a matter for others to determine. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for explaining clearly the absurdity of the current system.
	The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) gave us his usual history lesson. Sometimes, history does teach us something, but the essence of his contribution was to point out his belief that additional list Members crawling all over his constituency will not do much good for his constituents. I accept that view; indeed, it is one of the main reasons why I have reached the conclusions that I have reached.
	The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) rightly said that, at the moment, people do not care a jot about this issue. However, when it begins to affect them, they will care a lot. My biggest worry is that they will not vote. In such circumstances, democracy is the victim.
	The Minister has answered some of my questions, such as who will chair the commission. I am grateful to her for making that issue clear, and I am also happy with what she said about time scales. A time scale of 18 months, rather than 24 months, will be satisfactory—at least to me.
	I tabled the original amendments before 9 February, when this issue was previously debated. In the light of the work done by the commission since then, and having considered the various issues, I shall not press the amendments to a vote tonight—not least because of the contributions made by Members on both sides of the House. [Interruption.] I apologise—I sat down too early. The Whip is sat in front of me. I do not know what he is doing there—perhaps he is doing the wrong thing. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Alan Reid: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 10, line 10, at end insert—
	   'Rule 5
	   Wherever the boundary of a constituency for the Scottish Parliament is not coterminous with the boundary of a constituency for Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the Boundary Committee (as the case may be) shall ensure that the names for the different types of constituencies shall be different.'.
	I shall be brief. Although I support the Bill, as drafted it will result in unnecessary confusion. In 23 cases, constituencies for the Scottish Parliament will have different boundaries from constituencies for Westminster, but the same names. For example, there will be two constituencies of Aberdeen, North, and two of Aberdeen, South. That is not the fault of the boundary commission, which thought that it was producing a report that would work for both Parliaments. Legislation should be put in place to ensure that we do not end up with constituencies with different boundaries but the same name.
	In view of the lack of time, I do not intend to force a vote tonight, but I look forward to the Minister's response.

Anne McGuire: The intention behind the hon. Gentleman's amendment is to avoid any confusion that might arise from the decoupling of Westminster and Holyrood constituencies where such constituencies will have the same name. It will place the relevant requirement on the boundary committee of the Electoral Commission after the changeover has taken place, but as we have discovered, many electors prefer to stick with a well-established and accepted name for both their Westminster and Holyrood constituency—for example, Banff and Buchan, Gordon and East Lothian—notwithstanding the fact that the boundaries are not identical. We believe that they should retain that right, and I have every confidence that before the same name is adopted for a Westminster and Holyrood constituency, future reviews will take full account of the possibility of confusion and other difficulties that might arise.
	As drafted, the amendment would apply only to the new rule for future boundaries, and would make no difference to the current situation. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

Alan Reid: In view of the Minister's assurances that the boundary commission will take the considerations I have outlined into account, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	It being Nine o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001, 6 November 2003 and 9 February].
	Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
	Bill reported, without amendment.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Anne McGuire: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Third time.
	Over the two days of consideration—on Second Reading and in Committee today—we have had useful and interesting debates on the issues in the Bill. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to our debates, as well as parliamentary counsel and civil service colleagues who have been involved in the drafting of the legislation. This is a short Bill, focused on a relatively straightforward objective—to remove the existing statutory link in the Scotland Act 1998 between the number of constituencies at Westminster and those at Holyrood. That position was supported by a wide-ranging public consultation, which showed overwhelming support for retention of the current number of MSPs.
	However, as was made clear on Second Reading, we are aware of concerns about the operation of different boundaries for Westminster and Holyrood constituencies in the future. That is why we are setting up an independent commission to look at boundary differences and voting systems.
	The debate and varied proposed amendments today have shown that there is a range of views on the extent of the potential problems and what the best solutions might be. Further consideration of the issues is clearly necessary, and I entreat all colleagues in the House to ensure that they participate fully in the commission's deliberations. I appeal once again for the Conservative and Unionist party to reconsider its decision not to nominate candidates for the commission. The party has stood outside some of the major constitutional developments that have taken place in Scotland. If it is serious about participating in Scotland's development, the party should reflect again on its decision.
	We announced on Second Reading that we would set up the commission as soon as possible. As I said in earlier debates, work is now well advanced towards achieving its establishment. We now have the political parties' suggestions for members of the commission and we are in the process, in consultation with the First Minister, of selecting the chairman. We hope to announce the chairman's name very shortly.
	If tonight's deliberations are anything to go by, the commission will have an important and potentially far-reaching task. However, we should be confident that it will be able to carry out its task, consulting openly and fully with the people of Scotland and their representatives. Once again, I hope that hon. Members will participate fully in the debate over forthcoming months.
	The Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill marks a small but important step in the machinery of devolution, and I commend it to the House. I trust that hon. Members on both sides of the House will give it a fair wind on its way to the other place.

Peter Duncan: I have said consistently today, and on Second Reading too, that this Bill is unnecessary. It has no purpose. It is merely a political fix that the Government are determined to force on their Back Benchers. The evidence from the debates today and on Second Reading is that those Back Benchers are, at best, unwilling and, at worst, complicit in that fix.
	The Government have performed a spectacular U-turn. They made a deal with the Scottish public at the time of the referendum, but they have gone back on that commitment. The depth of their despair was made clear by the appointment of a commission. It is often said that when a Government have second thoughts they will undertake a review; that when they feel that a further reassessment is required they will have a structural review; and that when they are contemplating an embarrassing U-turn and want to do a deal with their Back Benchers, they will have a commission.
	The Government have set up a commission to solve problems that do not yet exist. Those problems will not be created until this Bill completes its passage through the House.
	In passing, I note that, in the Committee debate that has just ended, the Minister quoted from a letter written by my right hon. and learned Friend the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition. In that letter, the Conservative party's decision not to make a nomination to the commission at this stage was made clear. The hon. Lady omitted to quote from the final paragraph of the letter, which states:
	"If and when the Bill is passed, I would be happy to put forward a recommendation of someone to serve on the Commission."
	That is our position, and it is worth putting it on the record.
	The commission is being set up to solve a problem of non-coterminous boundaries that will be created by the Bill. The Government are creating the problem that the commission is being set up to fix.

Pete Wishart: If the Bill receives its Third Reading this evening, will the Conservative party submit a nomination to the commission, or will that happen only after the Bill has been through the House of Lords? For how long does the Conservative party intend to hold the process up?

Peter Duncan: I do not want to speak for the Minister, but I think she made it clear that we are not holding up the process. My right hon. and learned Friend's letter is clear: the phrase
	"If and when the Bill is passed"
	implies approval by both Houses. At that time, we will submit a name for consideration by the Secretary of State.
	The devolution referendum was a dialogue with the Scottish people, based on the proposals in the White Paper that was the originating document for the Scotland Act 1998. It is worth noting the importance of that White Paper, which in effect set out the terms of the contract governing the relationship between the constituencies of Members of Parliament and of MSPs. Lord Sewel recognised the importance of that deal; the whole thing was a package, not something from which one could simply pick and choose. That package was put to the Scottish people in its totality, if I dare use that word. Lord Sewel said:
	"That was in the White Paper. That is what we campaigned on. Having looked at the arguments again, on balance we think that that is the right proposition."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 July 1998; Vol. 591, c. 1336.]
	We campaigned on that deal, but the Government are seeking to cast it aside.
	The Government know that things have not changed. They knew then, and they know now, that coterminosity is vital to good working relationships between MPs and MSPs. Donald Dewar said as much during the debate, and the Minister and the Government know it now. However, that does not fit with the deal that they are trying to hatch to get them through this political conundrum.
	The Government knew then, and they know now, that a reduction in the size of the Scottish Parliament is possible and achievable. It is possible to deliver a Scottish Parliament that is lean and fit, and which delivers for Scotland without necessarily having 129 MSPs. That number was a consequence of taking the number of Westminster constituencies, and then applying a proportional element: 129 was not set in stone, and it is not a necessary requirement for the delivery of good and effective governance in Scotland.
	Finally, the Government knew then, and in their heart of hearts they know now, that a big Parliament does not make for better government. Better legislation does not depend on having bigger Parliaments, more Committees and more MSPs. We in this House should focus on what is best for the Scottish people. We should be after quality legislation, not necessarily more legislation.
	An amendment to the Scotland Act 1998 could be made only at huge political risk. The Government knew that before, and they know it now. Having been through a difficult afternoon at the hands of her Back Benchers, the Minister knows the large political risk taken in the Bill, and the fact that she has introduced it illustrates the power struggle between Holyrood and Westminster within the Labour party in Scotland.
	The Bill is a kick in the teeth for Labour Members in Scottish constituencies. They have been asked to swallow their pride on the boundary review at Westminster. They have been asked to accept a cull in their numbers, which has created significant problems for some of them. They have trooped through the Lobbies when they have been requested to support a failing and struggling Government. On issues that are not applicable in Scotland because the equivalent powers have been devolved, their support has been critical to the Government's success in forcing through unpopular legislation, on top-up fees in particular and on foundation hospitals. They have been shown to be more loyal on those issues than Labour Members representing English constituencies. They have done everything expected of them, and arguably a good deal more.
	Then came the Bill. They were lumbered with it as the other side of the deal. Having done all that was expected of them, they saw a part of the deal that they understood was in place withdrawn from them. Members of the Scottish Parliament, whom some Labour Members here deeply mistrust—that mistrust is misplaced—are to be excused the cull in their numbers. They have been let off the hook, and Back-Bench Labour Members know that their Front-Bench team has done a deal it should be ashamed of. Scots are sick of having too many politicians in Scotland. They have again been let down by Labour on the scale of government north of the border. Labour Members have had a kick in the teeth from their own Front Bench on an issue on which they thought a deal had been done in the Scotland Act.
	Much of our debate has focused on alternative electoral systems. We had a useful debate on the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), which raised the possibility of the first-past-the-post system for some of the constituency alterations that he envisaged. To put things straight and on the record, let me say that there is no doubt that the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party believes in first past the post. It creates good elections, good representatives, and good and decisive government. We shall continue to make that case in both Parliaments.
	There is another side to the deal hatched in the Scotland Act, which promised a reduction in the number of MSPs, that the Government have reversed. That other side was a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament. Members from Scotland face a reduction in number from 72 to 59. By introducing the Bill, the Government have shown their contempt for the Scotland Act's provision on the number of MSPs. We shall hold them to account on their supposed determination to bring forward the boundary review on constituencies before the next election. I received some reassurance in that regard when I received a copy—it is always a delight to get them—of the Secretary of State's Edinburgh, Central constituency newsletter. It begins:
	"Parliamentary constituency boundary changes mean that the Edinburgh Central Constituency will disappear at the next General election."
	To my knowledge, that is the first time the Secretary of State has been so specific. I am delighted that he has been, and the Minister can rest assured that we shall spare no effort in the coming weeks and months to ensure that the Government are unable to worm their way off that hook. The reduction in the number of MPs from Scotland is a critical part of the Scotland Act, and we want to see it implemented.

Alan Reid: The hon. Gentleman has said that he intends to oppose the Bill. However, if the Bill were lost, the boundary commission report would be delayed, because it would have to draw up regional boundaries for the Scottish Parliament before it could report. That would make it less likely that the number of Scottish Members of Parliament would be cut at the next election.

Peter Duncan: I do not see any need for that process to take very long, and there would also be other ways to achieve that end—for example, by secondary legislation.
	There are too many politicians in Scotland, the cost of the Parliament is burgeoning and the cost of the Executive is exploding. Administration costs have risen by £95 million in the past seven years. Ministerial cars have increased from eight to 14 in the same period. Staff numbers in the press office have increased from 60 to 90 and by more than 1,000 in the Executive office in the same period. The Government north of the border is exploding in size and quantity. The Scottish Conservative and Unionist party believes in small Parliaments and in small government.
	The political landscape in Scotland is clear, with one party—the Scottish Tories—committed to delivering smaller government for Scotland. All the others have become addicted to the bureaucracy and softened by the waste, so that they are unable to contemplate a devolved Scotland being governed by any fewer than 129 MSPs. Would that have been any different had the original number been 200 or 250? We have no way of knowing. The simple truth is that political parties have become consumed by their own importance. They have forgotten the interests of the man in the street, who is tired of Scotland's over-governing and is demonstrating that in declining turnouts in elections. Who would have thought that fewer than one in two would vote in the second elections to the new Scottish Parliament, which—the Government were keen to point out—had been anticipated for 300 years? Four years on, and less than half the population wished to participate in the second election. That was due in part to the issues addressed in the Bill: Scotland has too many politicians and the public know it.
	We will oppose the Bill tonight. It is an unnecessary piece of legislation, and the Scotland Act 1998 should be implemented in full. I was pleased to receive the support of some Labour Members in an earlier Division on amendments that would have delayed the implementation of the Bill. I hope that more will have the confidence to back with their support in the Lobby their significant support for our view in the Chamber.

Ian Davidson: The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) asked for support in the Lobby tonight, but that would be to vote for a cut in the number of MSPs from 129 to a much lower figure. No Back Bench Labour Member would do that. We have criticisms of the electoral system, but we do not want to destroy it. We want to be more constructive and to improve and enhance the Scottish Parliament.
	I regret the fact that we have had such a narrow debate about the Scottish Parliament today and recognise that that was because the Bill was deliberately drawn so narrowly by the Government as to preclude wider discussion. That was a major mistake. We should not be so defensive about the work of the Scottish Parliament that we are afraid to have a debate about its activities. Its work has been overwhelmingly positive. The media in Scotland have focused on some negative aspects, but the Parliament has achieved far more for Scotland in its relatively brief life than we could have reasonably expected, and it will continue to do so. It will build on the success that it has achieved so far in a way that justifies the faith that I and so many of my hon. Friends had in devolution, even when it was a minority position.
	I turn again to the commission, as it seems to be an integral part of the Government's position. The more I listen to the Minister, the more I cannot help feeling that we have been sold a pig in a poke, because there is no chance that anything resulting from the commission will be implemented in time for the 2007 elections.
	We are in May 2004. It is suggested that the commission will take a minimum of 18 months for its work, so that takes us, at the earliest, to November 2005, which is less than 18 months before the next elections to the Scottish Parliament. We are led to believe that during those 18 months it will be possible to consider the commission's report, set up a dialogue with the Scottish Parliament and other interested parties before we come to a decision and then put that decision into legislation. Even after the legislation is passed, boundary changes will have to be considered and implemented.
	All that leads me to believe that it is inconceivable that anything from the commission will be in place in time for elections in 2007. I am willing to wager a modest amount with anyone in the Chamber who thinks otherwise. I look forward to discussing the matter with anyone who assiduously supports the Government in all things to see whether anyone is daft enough to put their money where their vote will go. It is clear that there is no chance that any changes can be in place by 2007, so in those circumstances it would be much better to be honest with the people of Scotland and say, "This is something for 2011, so we shall take our time and do it thoroughly."
	We have also been told that the commission will look at relationships with other public bodies, which will take us into something altogether different. I am not entirely clear about what it means but I am sure that in due course it will be an alibi for delay. If anyone wants to wager a fiver or an amount in any other currency, I shall be happy to take them on, but the fact that no one is leaping forward to take my wager is an indication that my money would be safe if I were to make it.
	Finally, I want to think out loud on behalf of people in my constituency Labour party and in the Labour party in Scotland, especially in Glasgow, about what we should do now in preparation for the next set of Scottish elections under the existing system, particularly in relation to the second ballot. It is clear that voting Labour in the second ballot in Glasgow and in several other areas will be an utter waste of time. We cannot justifiably ask people to waste their vote when there is no prospect of gaining any seats as a result of that vote, unless we lose five of the 10 first-past-the-post seats. If, as we get closer to the election, it looks as though we might lose five of those 10 seats, I might revise my opinion. However, it is likely that we shall win at least eight or nine seats; I expect us to win 10, but even if we slip a little, the second vote will still be wasted. We cannot in good conscience ask people deliberately to waste their vote in the second ballot. We need to have something more constructive to say.
	I shall support the Government tonight, even though I regret this missed opportunity both to defend the work of the Scottish Parliament and to seek constructive improvements to the electoral system. Nevertheless, we are where we are, so, with considerable reluctance, I shall support the Government.

John Thurso: This small Bill is simple and straightforward. None the less, it has given rise to serious points and it is right that we had the opportunity to debate them.
	As an interim measure, the Bill will do the job that it sets out to do. It was introduced because a simple mistake was made in 1998, about which both the Conservative Opposition and the Liberal Democrats warned the Government. The mistake was thinking that, as the Parliament was set up with a set number of MSPs, no one could possibly seek to change that number less than six years after it was set up. We are here today because that mistake has been recognised and needs to be rectified.
	What I find extraordinary—bearing in mind the late Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish's cogent arguments, which have been mentioned already today—is the complete reversal that has gone on among those on the Tory Front Benches. The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) now says that coterminosity is everything and that the numbers can fluctuate, when his predecessors said in 1998 that, once people had picked a number, they had to stick with it. At that time, we decided that coterminosity was of less importance. It is extraordinary that the views of those on the Conservative Front Bench should oscillate in that way.
	I find that even more extraordinary when we are offered a commission with a serious opportunity to consider all the issues. That is the place where we can look at the various election methods. The AV system has been mentioned and it is a perfectly valid system. The first-past-the-post system is valid, but it is not one that I happen to agree with. All those systems need to be considered in such a forum, so that the views of all Scots, not just those who happen to be present in the Chamber, can be taken into account. It will then be our job to consider those recommendations and debate them, and we need the time to do so.
	It shows a stunning lack of political judgment that the Conservative party should fail to take part in that process, unless this were all some curious device to be able to vote one way today and another way at a later stage. The lack of judgment displayed by the Conservative party in that regard is equalled only by its leader's lack of judgment over the Butler inquiry.

Peter Duncan: Perhaps I have not made myself clear—if so, I accept the hon. Gentleman's admonishment—but the commission is being set up to resolve the problem of non-coterminous boundaries. Despite the lack of support from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), we still think that we might muster the numbers to oppose the Bill. We have not given up hope. Until the Bill completes its way through the House and becomes legislation, we do not have a problem with non-coterminous boundaries.

John Thurso: The hon. Gentleman might have persuaded himself in the shaving mirror about that argument, but he has not persuaded anyone else.
	It has become clear that a substantial majority of people in Scotland clearly understand that we need to maintain the number of Members at 129, or there or thereabouts—if it were 128 or 130, I would not quibble—to be able to preserve the workings of a new, young Parliament. That is the consensus view. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) pointed out, the Scottish Parliament is successful and has done a good job and we do not need to start rocking the boat at this juncture. It should be allowed to continue to do its work.
	There are two simple reasons for hanging on to 129 Members. First, the Scottish Parliament is working well and, secondly, because it is just settling down. I have always thought that it would take two or three Parliaments for the Scottish Parliament to settle down properly. However, there are clearly consequences, two of which have been debated at length tonight. One of them is the lack of coterminosity that will follow the next general election.
	As I mentioned earlier, the lack of coterminosity is built into the Scotland Act 1998. Approximately every eight years, when there is a boundary commission review, which takes place at different times for the two Parliaments, there is a period between general elections in each Parliament of approximately two years when the boundaries would be different. The consequence was there—we all knew that it would be—and it is not quite the great bugaboo that everyone has made out.
	The second consequence, which is only a partial consequence, is that the Scottish Parliament may choose another electoral system and vote for single transferable vote for local government. It is perfectly sensible that a commission should consider both voting and coterminosity and make recommendations. As I said on Second Reading, I hope that that will happen reasonably quickly. The Under-Secretary has given us some assurances about that.
	Given the need to act with reasonable dispatch to preserve the status quo on the one hand, and the consequences of that—coterminosity or its lack and the voting mechanism—on the other, it is clear that we need a mechanism. The commission is a sensible way forward and my hon. Friends and I will be happy to make representations to it. I hope that hon. Members who believe in AV and first past the post will present their arguments, as we will make ours for STV.
	Let us hear from the commission and base our decisions in the House on what it says. However, for the moment, let us pass a small, straightforward Bill that corrects an obvious mistake and preserve the future of the Scottish Parliament from the sword of Damocles of change.

Pete Wishart: As the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) said, the Bill is small, but it has produced a big and useful debate. Although the measure was designed exclusively to decouple the link between the reduction of the number of Members of this House and the desire to retain 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament, we have had the opportunity to examine many other important issues to do with Scottish Parliament. It has therefore been a valuable use of time.
	It is fair to acknowledge that it is our first opportunity to debate the Scotland Act on the Floor of the House since it was passed in 1998. I hope that it is the first of many such revisits to devolve further powers to the Scottish Parliament. I am sure that several other hon. Members share that ambition.
	The debate has given us an opportunity to examine the problems of coterminosity, consider voting systems and assess the workings of additional member systems of proportional representation for the Scottish Parliament. However, the genuine difficulties and challenges in the Labour party were much more revealing. The Westminster group and the Edinburgh group take different approaches and the differences emerged in our debates. [Interruption.] My hon. Friends remind me that there are differences within the Westminster group. A problem has been identified and I hope that we shall now work towards a sensible solution.
	The only outstanding issue for me and my hon. Friends is the role of the Scottish Parliament. The Secretary of State made it clear when he announced the commission that it would report jointly to the First Minister and the Secretary of State. The Under-Secretary has subsequently told us that it will report to those fine upstanding gentlemen and then be considered by the Scottish Executive before reverting to this place for further consideration and approval. The system appears to work until we get to the last bit. I am worried about the matter reverting to this place, given the hostility that has begun to emerge from Labour Members towards the Scottish Parliament. I hope that we can get a commitment that the consent of the Scottish Parliament will be required before any significant changes are made here. This Parliament will be subject to change and it is right that the parliamentarians who are elected by the Scottish people and who are accountable to them for their decisions have a say in the matter and that their consent is given to any changes made here.
	On Second Reading, the Secretary of State announced his intention to set up a commission to examine such issues. The Scottish National party looks forward to participating in the commission, of which we shall be judicious members. I share the disappointment at the Conservatives' decision not to join the commission at this stage. I agree that it represents monumental folly on the part of Conservative Front Benchers.
	The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) said in reply to my earlier intervention that he intends to join the commission after it has met for several months. That is some contribution from the Conservative party. We will all be part of the commission, trying to find a solution to some of the major problems that we have identified. Then along will come the Tories, once the Bill has finally gone through. That is an unsatisfactory solution for the Tories and I urge them to think again about serving on the commission.
	My colleagues and I will support the Bill on Third Reading because, along with the majority of people whose views have been canvassed, we believe that 129 Members are absolutely necessary for the Parliament to do its work effectively, not only because of the Committee system, but because that figure has been identified as the minimum to make the Parliament work. Again, only the Conservatives are against the measure.

Peter Duncan: The hon. Gentleman said that 129 is the minimum figure. Does that mean that the Scottish National party would like a bigger Scottish Parliament?

Pete Wishart: Yes, is the short answer. We would like to think of the Scottish Parliament as an independent normal Parliament, contributing to the rest of the nation. To perform that function, we would need more MSPs, or Members of Parliament, as they would be in an independent Scotland. I would hope that the hon. Gentleman would join us in that ambition. I am disappointed in the attitude of Conservative Members, who will vote against the Bill tonight. They will oppose it just as they opposed the Scotland Act 1998 in the first place.
	A number of Labour Members are itching to join the Conservatives. I note that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) is not paying attention, but his "stick with the Act" campaign is probably doomed to ignominious failure this evening. I sense that he would quite like to join the Conservatives in the Lobby tonight to oppose the Bill, so that he could stick with the Act.
	The figure of 129 is right, and we are committed to it. We look forward to the work of the commission. We hope that it can deal with some of the issues that have been identified in the two debates and we will certainly work with the commission to ensure that some solutions are delivered so that we can start to go forward.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 326, Noes 104.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Defence

That the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (Remedial) Order 2004 (S.I., 2004, No. 66), dated 14th January 2004, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th January, be approved.—[Vernon Coaker.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.—[Vernon Coaker.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

NOTHING

Banks and Banking

That the draft Cash Ratio Deposits (Value Bands and Ratios) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.—[Vernon Coaker.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Customs and Excise

That the Customs and Excise Duties (Travellers' Allowances and Personal Reliefs) (New Member States) Order 2004 (S.I., 2004, No. 1002), dated 1st April, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st April, be approved.—[Vernon Coaker.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

International Immunities and Privileges

That the draft Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 19th April, be approved.—[Vernon Coaker.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

European Communities

That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Agreement on Enlargement of the European Economic Area) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 26th April, be approved.—[Vernon Coaker.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Disposal of Batteries and Accumulators

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 15494/03, draft Directive on batteries and accumulators and spent batteries and accumulators; supports the Government's intention to welcome the draft Directive and supports the Government's aim of securing legislation that achieves a high level of environmental protection and harmonisation of the single market, at lowest cost, taking a risk-based and proportional approach, and of ensuring that final collection and recycling targets for spent portable batteries and accumulators are challenging, but achievable.—[Vernon Coaker.]
	Question agreed to.

Delegated Legislation

Ordered,
	That the Education (Pupil Exclusions) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) Regulations 2004 (S.I., 2004, No. 402), dated 23rd February 2004, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Vernon Coaker.]

Northern Ireland Affairs

Ordered,
	That Mr Peter Robinson be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Mr Gregory Campbell be added.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Transport

Ordered,
	That Mr Gregory Campbell be discharged from the Transport Committee and Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson be added.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

DATA PROTECTION LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Vernon Coaker.]

Nick Hawkins: May I start with the happy task of congratulating the Minister most sincerely on his recent engagement to be married, and wish him and his fiancée every happiness for the future?
	Before I come to the specific issue relating to data protection and the Information Commissioner Mr. Richard Thomas's advice on how that affects all hon. Members, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your kind and sympathetic advice about how these issues, and what led up to them, could best be presented to the House. In particular, I thank very many of my right hon. and hon. Friends for their friendship, help and support. I will not, however, take any interventions, as I have quite a lot of ground to cover.
	I have perhaps made some errors of judgment—to which I shall return—as we all do being human, but I have not made any mistakes about my parliamentary friends. I thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway), and my right hon. Friends the Members for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), and for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis)—I have worked directly for all of them on the Front Bench in recent years—for all their strong support. I also thank in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean), our Chief Whip, and other Whips, some of whom are here tonight, and most particularly, of course, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the Leader of the Opposition, whom I am proud to serve as a shadow Minister, both for keeping me in that position and for helping me to rebut some of the outrageous slurs, smears and character assassination that some of my local opponents have seen fit to put in the national and local press.
	I have been accused, among other things, of racism, despite all the many speeches I have made and the work that I have done in the House over the past 12 and a bit years, and for many years before that with many groups representing ethnic minorities as varied as the Ahmadiyya Muslims—one of whose UK leaders is one of my lifelong friends—as well as with Greek Cypriots, and Taiwanese and Caribbean groups. I am glad to say that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have made it clear to me that they never accepted for one moment that allegation. I have also been accused of not being a team player. That is almost just as hurtful to someone such as me who has been so passionate about team sports all my life.
	The very good news for my party and its leadership is that, in future, a lot of matters will change and the huge surge in support and in fund raising that has come about, particularly in recent times since my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe became leader of my party, will mean that there will be no need for any reliance to be placed on some of the disreputable matters and dubious people whom I will mention later. I should also stress that I firmly believe that, if only my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden had been able to remain chairman of my party for just a little while longer, he would have continued the remedial work that he had already begun, and what has recently happened to me could not then have occurred.
	Throughout the recent process in my constituency party, I was advised—I am sure correctly—by some of the leading media experts in my party to concentrate entirely on the positive aspects of what I have sought to do in my 12 and a bit years so far in the House: my work for constituents and for my party. That of course includes dealing with such issues as data protection, the subject of the debate. I did that and I replied as little as possible to the smears and allegations that were peddled against me.
	In a Parliament of more than 650 Members, there are perhaps only 10 or so on each side of the House who will ever become household names among the general public, and known outside their own area or outside the circle of political aficionados. Of the other 630 or so, even if, like me, they have been shadow Ministers for a number of years, all the rest are in the category of those memorably described—
	It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That the House do now adjourn.—[Vernon Coaker.]

Nick Hawkins: All the rest are in the category of those memorably described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border—our Chief Whip—as doing the unglamorous, unpublicised but vitally necessary hard grind of taking important Bills through Committees, debating and scrutinising important legislation word by word, line by line and clause by clause, as well as doing the work that Members on both sides of the House seek to do for constituents. It is not the kind of work that will often get one in the news headlines or top billing on the political programmes, but it is the lifeblood of Parliament's central and crucial role in this United Kingdom, and something in which I have always passionately believed.
	The kind of shadow Front-Bench jobs that I have done, such as shadow Solicitor-General, do not get one into the news very often, but they are important. They do not enable one to become a celebrity MP, but they are vital. Many Members, including senior ones from both sides of the House—cross-party friends, as well as other parliamentary colleagues—have kindly come to me in the last two or three weeks to say things such as, "There but for the grace of God go any of us" and, "Decisions must be taken by all parties to ensure that things like this cannot happen in future to those known to be diligent and hard working." Also, I feel that I owe it to the many constituents who regarded me as having been a good MP for them in the constituency, who have contacted me by phone, letter, fax or e-mail, or who have been in touch with local newspapers and radio to say, "What is the real story here? We don't understand", to put some of the real facts on the record.
	As I have never been a Member who has sought to become a celebrity, this may only be a footnote to history, but in contrast to all the negative rubbish that some of my local opponents have peddled to the press, I should like to see it in Hansard as an accurate footnote.I also want to be quite clear that none of this is after-the-event sour grapes. As my hon. Friends who are present—and many others who could not be here tonight—know, I have been trying to deal with some of these issues for years.
	Journalists, as we know, are busy people, and many, wanting a brief report on a controversy involving a non-celebrity MP, simply looked up their cuttings file, found that they had a story about my divorce and remarriage from several years ago and recycled that, as if it were the reason for recent events. I was disappointed by that, since it was obviously upsetting for my wife, my former wife, my children and stepchildren. Fortunately, four of the five children are now grown up. The facts are that recent events were not related to that at all. It was not even mentioned at the meeting where a majority—led by the local cronies to whom I will come later—voted to deselect me.
	The lack of relevance of that matter to recent events is confirmed by the fact that, since my separation, divorce and remarriage, I have been both reselected and re-elected. I have been remarried nearly three years, so that was not the real issue. The real issues, as so often, revolve around power and money and the ambitions, jealousy and greed of a tiny handful of people who set out to persuade many others whom they kept in the dark about the real history. Some of it, but only some, began to be reported in one of the national newspapers last weekend. I believe that there will be further investigations.
	I was first elected to this House—contrary to media and pollster predictions—to represent the old Blackpool, South constituency at the 1992 election, against the swing and with a small majority in a seat that was very marginal on its old boundaries. Hon. Members will remember that boundary alterations in the middle of the 1992 to 1997 Parliament produced many major changes—not least that the revised version of my constituency became, on all the figures and predictions, a safe Labour seat, even before the landslide swing to Labour in 1997. I, like many other MPs—not only Conservatives, contrary to some mythology—had to seek to move if I wished to remain in the House. I adopted a self-denying ordinance in that I decided to apply only to seats where there was an open selection: where no sitting Conservative Member had a prior claim because the new seat had been part of his or her constituency. In practice, I was considering applying only for those seats where colleagues were retiring.
	My current constituency was a new creation. There had never been a constituency called Surrey Heath before; it was carved out of parts of three pre-existing seats, and all three sitting Conservative Members were retiring. Two of those had been highly respected Ministers and both—my noble Friend Lord Howell of Guildford, now in another place, and the late and much lamented Cranley Onslow, who was latterly and for tragically too short a time Lord Onslow of Woking—were active and diligent constituency MPs.
	The third retiring Member, also now deceased, was Sir Michael Grylls. I have discovered subsequently that pretty well all the problems that I have had were caused by the fact that all the administration and almost all the leading figures in the constituency association, who were running everything, were inherited from his old North-West Surrey constituency. While we were colleagues for just a short time before I became his successor in part of his old seat, I never had any reason to fall out personally with Mickey Grylls, as he was known. However, he has been described, even by some of his closest friends and protégés in this place, in less than flattering terms. Of course, that matter, too, was covered in the national press at the weekend. I would not want to speak ill of the dead, but anyone who is interested in the history might want to revisit the three volumes published by the Committee of this House that looked into the Downey report produced by Sir Gordon Downey and published just after the 1997 election.
	The concern that I soon came to have was that, throughout the time that Sir Michael was pursuing his parliamentary and his linked business activities, which Sir Gordon Downey and others investigated and reported on so thoroughly, he had left the administration of the constituency in the hands of the people who have more recently caused me a great deal of trouble. Since that time—since reports such as that to which I have just referred—parliamentary rules have tightened up considerably, but the views, beliefs, activities and attitudes of the party agent Mr. Alan Cleverly and his closest crony Barry Price, who boasts of having been a senior officer of the association continuously since 1986, have not changed at all.
	The very fact that in one of the safest Conservative seats in the country, which has no shortage of active members, someone can be elected and re-elected continuously for a period of some 18 years as a senior officer of the association must in itself cause a question mark, I would suggest. So far as Mr. Cleverly is concerned, he will have been thinking until the reports in last weekend's press that he has lived up to his name and is now even more powerful because he has managed to get rid of an MP without his name ever appearing—until now.
	Of course, that is not the end of the story. I stress that there are some among those who run the association with whom I get on well and who have behaved perfectly properly, so I am not making blanket accusations about everyone involved, but there are some individuals who have been in power, in my view, all too long. Their view is that they should control both the activities and the financial arrangements of a Member of Parliament in their entirety. My refusal to bow to their demands is what they really mean by saying that I am not a team player. If I am not a team player, as those people allege, I ask rhetorically how it has come about that I have been chosen for the teams of all of the past four Conservative leaders? In both government and opposition, I have been chosen to join the team. All the past three Opposition leaders have both appointed and promoted me in their teams.
	I express my grateful thanks, also, to Officers of the House, including in particular Archie Cameron, the director of operations at the Fees Office, who has regularly produced helpful letters to the officers of my association, seeking to explain in great detail the rules as they apply to Members of Parliament. They have simply refused to believe his and others' letters.
	For the whole of my eight years representing this constituency, I have faced constant pressure to hand over money from either my own taxed earnings or, more seriously, Commons allowances—and this to a constituency party that constantly boasts of being the wealthiest in the country and raising the most money. As I have been conscious at all times of how tight the rules for hon. Members are, I have refused to provide any more than I have felt can be properly justified by my limited use of the party's facilities locally.
	Recently, the local party said to me that because it provides me with an office it will measure the floorspace of the whole association building and charge me for the proportion that my office occupies, whereas one should really consider the cost on the open market of my use of the room, which has been restricted to regular surgeries. I stick to my judgment of what is an appropriate claim on the taxpayer, as I should, and I know that I have been supported in that stand not only by the director of the Fees Office but by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and senior members of my party.
	An extraordinary document emanating from the multi-faceted business empire built up by Mr. Cleverly—it has been referred to in the national press—is the invoice that I received during the last Parliament, headed "Cleverly Consultants". One would not expect a Member of Parliament to receive such a document from an employee of the party who is supposed to be its agent for the area.
	Furthermore, let us consider how the agent has perhaps not worked in the best interests of my party. He has been involved in producing two newspapers issued from the constituency offices that bear pictures promoting Labour Ministers. I am not asking the Minister to comment on that, as he is probably very pleased about it, but imagine whether, if the roles were reversed, a Labour party agent would remain long in post if he published something from his constituency office that had Conservative spokesmen on the front page.
	To stress that I have no difficulty with the vast bulk of my party's supporters and volunteers, let me say that I joined the party as a Young Conservative, aged 16, in Bideford, I was an active student Conservative at Oxford and I was subsequently heavily involved in the voluntary side of my party. I have held pretty well all the offices in the various constituencies that I have lived in, up to and including deputy constituency chairman for the former Rochford Member, my great friend Dr. Michael Clark. I also chaired one of our main think tanks, the Bow Group. I know how valuable the work of ordinary volunteers normally is. There are many dedicated volunteers whom I have worked hard with over the past eight or nine years in Surrey Heath, and many of them voted for me to stay on.
	When I was a volunteer and a constituency officer, I was always loyal to the MP I was working for, but there is another category of people who hold office in parties: those who want to use their position to do others down or replace them or to benefit financially or politically. They are the inner circle of cronies in the cosy cartel built up over the years by Mr. Cleverly.
	In the run-up to my selection as the Conservative candidate for Surrey Heath in 1996, the document that featured in the national press at the weekend was published: the so-called guidelines saying that anybody who wished to be considered for selection had to fax it back and say that, if chosen, they would be prepared to provide £10,000 or thereabouts. Ever since, despite all the rule changes and letters from the director of the Fees Office, those involved have sought to treat that as a binding contract. In my view, that was probably contrary to the rules even in 1996—it has certainly not happened in any other constituency that I am aware of.
	Also, I discovered shortly after my selection that I was not supposed to win. The agent, a professional employee who would have to work with whomever was chosen, was not only allowed to vote—a most extraordinary thing in itself—but had in effect been organising the campaign for a local lady whom he wanted to succeed Mickey Grylls. I narrowly defeated her in the final, and was taken that same evening to a function that seemed to have a very odd atmosphere. It was not all that surprising that the atmosphere was odd: I discovered subsequently that it was supposed to be the victory party for the local lady. However, the agent felt that, because I had narrowly won, he had to take me to it anyway. It does not help matters that Mr. Cleverly is from the Europhile wing of the party, whereas I have always been known as a Eurosceptic.
	Immediately after the 1997 election, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who was Parliamentary Private Secretary to our then party leader, having become MP for that constituency, approached me in the Lobby and said that at a meeting held here in the Palace of Westminster to which his attention had been drawn, the party agent—an employee of the party—had attacked the new leader, saying that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) should have been chosen instead.
	Ever since then, Mr. Cleverly has sought to undermine me and if possible to get rid of me—to the fury and despair of other senior party agents who live in my constituency—because he saw me as a threat to the money-making activities that he has built up on the back of his position as a party agent, all of which are run from the constituency headquarters. He has built a little empire, to which I was a threat. It is perhaps no coincidence that in the few days before the vote was taken by the constituency executive to deselect me, a decision was taken by some of my hon. Friends to remove a substantial part of the business income that Mr. Cleverly had previously earned from some of his activities.
	As I have said, it has been a matter of great concern that "Small Business News" and many of the other publications do not seem to be working in the interests of my party. I believe that the agent has been fixing things for 20 years to boost his business income, but one has to look at what he has done in terms of the job that he is supposed to do, which is to help our party. When Surrey Heath borough council was first created, every single elected member of it was a Conservative. While the agent has been in office, the situation has changed. Now, we hold the council by only one seat, and a couple of seats were held by only one vote. So in his time, he seems to have concentrated on money-making activities rather than politics, which is the wrong way round. Most of my party's members have no idea about this business empire or what has been going on.
	What about the other cronies who have managed to get on to the list of candidates for my party? In the past, two of them—Mr. Robinson, who is now the president, and Mr. Harper, who is now the chairman—have sought my help. Indeed, I have in my hand a couple of files that illustrate how they sought my help. Mr. Robinson asked for my help in 2002 in order to join our party's list of candidates. I have mentioned errors of judgment; perhaps it was an error of judgment on my part to support his candidacy. I have a letter that he wrote to me in the summer of 2002, thanking me for my support in his application to join the candidates list. I also have letters thanking me for supporting his efforts to get one of his employees—a young lady called Gurana Granov—into the UK. I do not know why he was so interested in getting her into the country, but I helped him and got a thank you letter for doing so.
	Mr. Harper is on our candidates list, and it has been reported that he wishes to succeed me. Shakespeare once said that those who wield the dagger rarely wear the crown. Even if these people have failed to succeed in stabbing me in the back, they have sought to stab me in the front. I am sure that it will be remembered by other constituency associations when I say that when colleagues have been in the process of retiring, I have spent a lot of time recommending Mr. Harper—when I thought that he was a good man—for consideration as a candidate. I have even invited him to dinner here with retiring colleagues, spending my own money entertaining him, so that he could find out about other constituencies. I have no doubt that the way in which he has repaid that support will be noted by the other constituencies to which either of the two gentlemen in question might apply.
	All those people believe and openly say that the Surrey Heath constituency raises so much money that, and I quote,
	"we are entitled to have a Cabinet Minister or shadow Cabinet Minister as our MP".
	The most extraordinary aspect of the whole saga is that they now believe, having deselected me, that they can return to having normal meetings as if nothing has happened.
	Finally, I turn to the effect—

Mr. Speaker: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman mention the word "finally", because I must give the Minister an opportunity to reply.

Andrew MacKinlay: It is not the Minister's fault—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. As the hon. Member says, it is not the Minister's fault. I should also say that I have given the hon. Gentleman a great deal of latitude and he may wish to know that the Minister can reply only on certain matters that he has raised.

Nick Hawkins: As I say, Mr. Speaker, I turn finally to the data protection issues, which I have discussed with the Minister outside the House, so I can be brief.
	The Information Commissioner has helpfully stated how Members of all political parties can avoid the problem in the future. He said, and the Minister has seen the letter:
	"How the Data Protection Act applies to political parties is dependent on how the parties are organised. If . . . local constituency parties are considered at law to be separate unincorporated associations . . . this means that, for data protection purposes, each local constituency party will need to address its own data protection responsibilities. It is . . . important to be clear about the nature of the relationship between individual local constituency parties and the party's 'central office' . . . It is important to be clear whether members sign up to join a 'national' party and do so by applying direct to the central office and/or by applying to their local party, or whether members, by whichever route they apply for membership, are in fact members of the local constituency party in which they live. Whatever the position, this should be made clear to members when they join. Further it should be made clear to members who will have access to their membership details. For example . . . Will details be made available to any member of their local constituency party? Will they be available to the constituency MP? Will they only be made available to the local branch officials to use for party administration?"
	That is crucial, Mr. Speaker, because you and the Minister will appreciate that if, in future, any MP of whatever party is able, with the protection of that advice, to gain access to the full list of members, the local party apparatchiks would not be able to spread rumour and innuendo. The MP would be able to talk to directly to members and perhaps the 50 per cent. of my local party members who did not vote in the reselection ballot might then have voted. I am concerned to ensure that what happened to me does not happen to other hon. Members in future. The Information Commissioner has provided the way out of the problem.
	Those who know me well know that I am a film buff. Some will have heard me say that I was inspired both to read for the Bar and subsequently to go into politics by the performance of the great actor, Robert Donat, in the film of the Terence Rattigan play, "The Winslow Boy". The crucial phrase said by the actor is, "Let right be done". To add a more contemporary political reference, the present Governor of California's most famous character says, "I'll be back". I have not gone yet, Mr. Speaker, but let right be done and I'll be back.

Christopher Leslie: The fact that it is not the Government's fault is one of the first things that needs to be put on the record—[Interruption.]
	I start by thanking the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) for his kind comments at the outset. Clearly, the House will note with great interest and considerable concern many of the illuminating comments that he made this evening. There are wider issues, in respect not only of the rules governing the dissemination of political party membership lists, but of the circumstances that he encountered in the course of the selection and reselection process by the local Conservative association.
	Before I address some of those wider issues, I should like to put on the record my own observations about the hon. Gentleman. He has been my opposite number during the past year while I have been Under-Secretary in the Department for Constitutional Affairs. I have always held him in high regard and with great respect. Although we disagree fundamentally on policy and party positions, he has always been very courteous, thorough and assiduous in his duties. I find that the hon. Gentleman is effective in making his party's case, raising pertinent questions and holding the Government to account. I know that he feels, deeply, that that is part of his duty. I am sorry that he is now less likely to continue in that role in the next Parliament.
	I shall deal only in the briefest sense with some of the issues that have been raised in connection with the guidance from the Information Commissioner on the application of data protection legislation. The Commissioner operates independently of Government. Except for the courts, only he can give an authoritative interpretation of the Data Protection Act 1998. That Act sets the rules with which all organisations using personal data must comply, and also creates rights for individuals in respect of their personal data.
	The 1998 Act sets out a general framework of eight good handling rules known as the data protection principles, which regulate the processing of personal information. The rules are not prescriptive: they are not "dos and don'ts", and organisations must use their judgment when applying the principles.
	The first data protection principle is of particular importance in the context of membership details of political parties or other organisations, whether at a national or a local level. Among other things, the first principle requires personal data to be processed fairly. That means being open with the people from whom one collects information about how one intends to use that information.
	Specifically, the first principle requires organisations—known in the legislation as "data controllers"—to make clear to people, when their data are collected, the identity of the data controller or his nominated representative, the purposes for which the data are intended to be processed, and any further information that is necessary in the specific circumstances to enable the processing to be fair.
	However, as the Information Commissioner pointed out in his letter to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, the 1998 Act does not dictate who, within any membership organisation, should have access to membership details. Instead, the position is that the organisation should clearly establish who will have access to the membership details concerned and then ensure that that is made clear to members when they join.
	Finally, it should be noted that the 1998 Act does not require the disclosure of personal information if an organisation does not wish to disclose it. That is not part of the Act's remit.
	The hon. Member for Surrey Heath made a variety of comments about allegations about payments to local associations being required as a condition of selection, and so on. I do not want to go into those too much, although the stories are worrying. They suggest that candidates were sometimes viewed as valuable commodities in more ways than one.
	As we all know, if hon. Members wish to donate sums of money from their private salaries to their local parties, that is their business. The report in the Mail on Sunday raised the spectre that some hon. Members might have their freedom fettered by demands for payment as a condition for selection or reselection. However, there is also a separate issue about the use of public funds.
	If hon. Members use their personal allowances to purchase services from political parties or others, there are basic obligations that must be observed. Mr. Cameron, head of operations in the Department of Finance and Administration, wrote to all hon. Members a year or two ago to say that in such cases hon. Members must lodge with the Fees Office copies of their service agreements and/or rental agreements, and that they must also satisfy themselves that any sums paid to party organisations in this way are for services actually provided, and that they must represent value for money for the taxpayer. Those are pretty fundamental matters.
	As I said, at this stage it is probably best that I do not comment on any individual cases, although the points made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath are now on the record. Any specific questions about the use of parliamentary allowances would not be for me or the Government to answer, but for the relevant House authorities.
	In the meantime, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath has clearly exercised his right to put his case on the record, and that is now available for his constituents to read and to hear.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.